i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Kohli M, Wadhawan S, Bhadoria P, Ratan SK. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Jan-Mar;35(1):30-35

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the i-gel as compared to the ETT in terms of adequacy of ventilation in 80 children (2-8 years of age) undergoing paediatric laparoscopic surgeries. Several parameters were evaluated including peak airway pressure, end-tidal CO2, minute ventilation, SpO2, as well as desufflation of the peritoneal cavity. These variables were recorded after securing the airway, after carboperitoneum (CP) and after desufflation of the peritoneal cavity. Results showed a significant increase in the partial pressure of mean expired CO2 (PeCo2), peak airway pressure, as well as minute ventilation in both groups after creation of CP. On the other hand, no difference was observed in heart rate or mean arterial pressure. Moreover, the i-gel showed a smaller increase in peak airway pressure and fewer post-operative complications. Thus, both devices were comparable in terms of adequacy of ventilation, but the i-gel was able to provide a safe alternative to the ETT.

Link to abstract.

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.

Tracy MB, Priyadarshi A, Goel D, Lowe K, Huvanandana J, Hinder M. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 May;103(3)

This manikin study assessed and compared the delivered ventilation of seven, size 1 LMA devices with two different face masks using self-inflating bags (SIBs). 40 participants carried out resuscitation on a specialised infant training manikin using the LMAs and the face masks in a random fashion. Findings have shown that the i-gel had the highest peak inspiratory pressure and higher PEEP compared to the other devices. In addition, the i-gel showed no insertion failures and all users described it as easy to use. Thus, these results indicate that the i-gel may become the primary resuscitation device used for newborn resuscitation.

Link to abstract.

Jain RA, Parikh DA, Malde AD, Balasubramanium B. Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Apr;62(4):269-279

This survey was sent to over 16,000 members of the Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists and given to delegates at the Asian Society of Paediatric Anaesthesiologists conference 2017. Percentage, mean and standard deviation were calculated. Results showed i-gel was the most commonly used device (60%) and 75% of respondents had access to second-generation supraglottic airways.

Link to abstract.

Lee YC, Yoon KS, Park SY, Choi SR, Chung CJ. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018 Feb;71(1):37-42. 

In this study the performance of the i-gel and the LMA Supreme was evaluated in infants (ASA I and II) undergoing general anaesthesia. 60 patients were randomly assigned to the i-gel and the LMAS and the size of the devices was selected in accordance to the infant’s weight. A range of parameters including oropharyngeal leak pressure (primary outcome), fiberoptic view, airway quality, airway manipulations, insertion success rate and time (secondary outcomes) were investigated to determine the efficacy and safety of the two devices. Insertion time was shorter for the i-gel group.

Link to abstract.