i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Comparison of blind intubation with different supraglottic airway devices by inexperienced physicians in several airway scenarios: a manikin study

Bielski A, Smereka J, Madziala M, Golik D, Szarpak L. Eur J Pediatr. 2019 Jun;178(6):871-882

This manikin study aimed to compare the performance of several supraglottic airway devices (SADs) in different blind intubation scenarios performed by 116 inexperienced physicians. The devices used included i-gel, Air-Q laryngeal airway and Ambu AuraGain. The three devices were tested on a paediatric manikin in three different scenarios, which included normal airway without chest compressions (A), normal airway with continuous chest compressions plus the CORPLUS CPR system (CCS) (B), and difficult airway with continuous chest compressions plus CCS (C). Parameters assessed in this investigation included first intubation success rate, median time to SAD placement, time to endotracheal intubation, as well as ease of intubation. Results have shown that the i-gel performed better in every scenario and in all parameters tested as compared to the other devices. Therefore, these data demonstrated that the i-gel is the most effective device for emergency blind intubation performed by inexperienced physicians in paediatric patients.

Link to abstract.

Comparison of blind intubation through the I-gel and the Air-Q™ by novice physicians during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomized, crossover, manikin trial.

Szarpak Ł. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Mar;35(3):509-510. Epub 2016 Nov 12.

This study set out to determine the efficacy of blind intubation by novice physicians using the i-gel and the Air-Q devices. Prior the study, a training session focused on anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of the airways, as well as methods for airway control was provided to all participants. The novice physicians were randomly assigned to either the i-gel or the Air-Q. Several parameters were assessed including time to intubation (primary outcome), time to secure the airway, efficacy of blind intubation and difficulty of the procedure (measured in visual-analogue scale or VAS). Results showed that the time for airway management was 6.5 seconds for the i-gel and 11 seconds for the Air-Q. Time to intubation was significantly shorter when using the i-gel as compared to the Air-Q. Moreover, the effectiveness of intubation was 90% for the i-gel and 78% for the Air-Q. i-gel also had a lower VAS score, and the majority of the participants preferred it to the Air-Q. Therefore, these results suggest that the i-gel represents a better choice for blind intubation by novice physicians when performing CPR.

Link to abstract.

Comparison of learning performance of 2 intubating laryngeal mask airways in novice: A randomized crossover manikin study.

Liu ZJ, Yi J, Chen WY, Zhang XH, Huang YG. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 May;96(19):e6905.

46 doctors with no intubation experience were given 20 minutes of airway training and a short practice session with the i-gel and Aura-I. They were then asked to insert each device into a manikin in random order and to attempt intubation through each airway. Time to ventilation, first-attempt and overall intubation success, incidence of gastric inflation, ease of insertion, view of the vocal cords, and insertion score were all recorded and compared. Participants attempted the same tasks at a 3-month follow-up session. First-attempt and overall success rates for intubation were high and comparable, with only 1 patient failing to intubate via the Aura-I at follow-up. Performance of the devices was generally comparable. Time to intubation was shorter with the i-gel at both time points. Participants also reported that the i-gel was easier to use. These results may be due to the lack of inflatable cuff.

Link to abstract

Evaluation of the efficacy of six supraglottic devices for airway management in dark conditions: a crossover randomized simulation trial

Ohchi F, Komasawa N, Imagawa K, Okamoto K, Minami T. J Anesth. 2015 Dec;29(6):887-92

15 novice doctors and 17 with >2 years experience were asked to insert each airway device into a manikin in random order. This was done in a windowless room with all the lights on and again with the lights switched off. Insertion time, insertion success, and participant's own perception of ease of use were all recorded. Ventilation success was lower in both groups when using the ProSeal and cLMA in the dark. Insertion time for these devices was longer in the dark, an effect that was also seen in both groups. Both ProSeal and cLMA were rated as more difficult to use in the dark compared with light conditions and with other devices. These results are thought to be due to the difference in design between these airways and the others used in the study, which are stiffer and anatomically shaped.

Link to abstract

Laryngoscopy facilitates successful i-gel insertion by novice doctors: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Miyazaki Y, Komasawa N, Matsunami S, Kusaka Y, Minami T. J Anesth. 2015;29(5):654-9

Trial on 84 adults assigned to either laryngoscopy or control groups, with number of attempts to successful insertion and difficulty of insertion the primary outcomes measured. Results suggest that laryngoscopy facilitates i-gel insertion by novice doctors.

Link to abstract