i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Supraglottic airway use by lifeguards

McKenna M, Davies M. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928

A response to the Adelborg et al study (Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):343-7), questioning whether manikin simulation "adequately reproduces" the real-life anatomic difficulties experienced in drowning patients.

Link to abstract

A reply

Lofgren B, Adelborg K. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 929-30

A response to the two concerns raised by McKenna (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928) and Baker (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9), acknowledging that more studies are needed and that there is currently “insufficient evidence” to recommend any specific ventilation technique among lifeguards. They also reiterate their study conclusions.

Link to abstract

Should supraglottic airway devices be used by lifeguards at all?

Baker P, Webber J. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9

A further response to Adelborg et al (Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):343-7), expressing concern at this being a manikin study, and suggesting that the “vital issue” is whether a device is “fit for purpose” in the case of a drowning patient.

Link to abstract

A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i-gelTM and AuraOnceTM supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards

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