i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

A comprehensive list of all known published clinical evidence on the device

SupremeTM laryngeal mask airway vs. the i-gel® supraglottic airway in patients under general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation with no neuromuscular block: a randomised clinical trial

Fernández Díez A, Prez Villafane A, Bermejo González JC, Marcos Vidal JM. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2009; 56: 474-478
In this study, 85 patients were randomised into two groups for ventilation via LMA Supreme® or i-gel® supraglottic airways. Ease of insertion, seal pressure, ventilatory parameters and insertion of a gastric tube were all recorded. Both devices were easy to insert, with the SupremeTM and i-gel® being inserted on the first attempt in 95.2 and 86% of cases respectively. Performance was generally comparable.

Abstract text

Evaluation of the new supraglottic airway devices Ambu® Aura OnceTM and Intersurgical i-gel®. Positioning, sealing, patient comfort and airway morbidity

Heuer JF, Stiller M, Rathgeber J, Eich C, Züchner K, Bauer M, Timmermann A. Anaesthesist 2009; 58(8): 813-820

In this study, the i-gel® was compared to the cLMA, ProSeal and Ambu Aura OnceTM supraglottic airways. 40 patients were assigned to each of the four groups for insertion of one of the airways during surgery. Ease of insertion and insertion time were comparable for all devices. The ProSeal and Aura OnceTM airways had significantly better placement and seal pressures. Airway morbidity did not occur in any of the groups. The cLMA was significantly more likely to cause postoperative sore throat.

Link to abstract

 

i-gel® supraglottic airway for rescue airway management and as a conduit for intubation in a patient with acute respiratory failure

Campbell J, Michalek P, Deighan M. Resuscitation 2009; 80(8): 963

This case report details the case of a 54-year-old man with acute respiratory failure, who had a grade four view at laryngoscopy. He was difficult to bag-mask ventilate and a laryngeal mask was inserted as an airway rescue technique. As ventilation was not possible with this device, it was removed and a size four i-gel® inserted. This allowed good ventilation. A fibrescope was passed down the airway channel and a 7.0mm endotracheal tube passed over the fibrescope and through the i-gel®. The i-gel® was then removed, leaving the airway secure.

Link to abstract.

Pre-hospital resuscitation using the i-gel®

Thomas M, Benger J. Resuscitation 2009; 80(12): 1437

This correspondence article describes 12 attempts to ventilate patients in cardiac arrest using the i-gel®. The device could usually be inserted on the first attempt; however, on seven out of 12 occasions ventilation was then found to be inadequate. The i-gel®s were correctly positioned, but there were large leaks. The authors state that the reason for this is unclear, but that the device may be harder to position correctly when patients are not in the most appropriate position for insertion. An alternative explanation is that higher pressure is needed to ventilate the lungs after cardiac arrest, in which case other supraglottic airways should have the same problem.

Link to abstract.

The Supraglottic Airway i-gel® in Comparison with Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway and Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anaesthetized Patients

Shin W, Cheong Y, Yang H, Nishiyama T. European Journal Of Anaesthesiology 2009; 26: 000-000

167 patients were randomly assigned to device groups. Haemodynamic data, airway leak pressure, leak volume, success rates and postoperative complications were assessed.

Link to abstract.