i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kohama H, Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. Pediatr Int. 2015;57(1):180-2

Study on performance of air-Q, Ambu Aura-i and i-gel in a manikin simulation, undertaken by 22 novice physicians. Rate of success and insertion time with and without chest compressions were measured.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. J Anesth. 2014 Oct;28(5):676-80

Insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured, with the latter unaffected by chest compression. 

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI. J Anesth 2014; 28(5): 676-80

A group of 20 novice physicians inserted the named devices into manikins with or without chest compressions, whereupon insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured. In cases of successful ventilation, blind tracheal intubation via the inserted device was performed. Chest compression did not significantly decrease ventilation success rates in each device, however insertion time with i-gel® did suffer, according to the authors.

Link to abstract

Seno H, Komasawa N, Fujiwara S, Miyazaki S, Tatsumi S, Sawai T, Minami T. Masui. 2014 May;63(5):590-3

Manikin study to investigate effectiveness of three fixation methods on an automated chest compressor. Fixation strap may prove useful in stabilising i-gel insertion in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Adelborg K, Al-Mashhadi RH, Nielsen LH, Dalgas C, Mortensen MB and Løfgren B. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr; 69(4): 343-7

Forty lifeguards took part in this manikin study, where time to ventilation and proportion of successful ventilations (both with and without ‘concurrent’ chest compressions) were measured. Mean time to ventilate with i-gel® was 15.6 seconds, compared to 35.2 for Soft Seal and 35.1 for AuraOnce. Authors concluded that ‘most lifeguards preferred the i-gel®’.

Link to abstract