i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Are nurses able to perform blind intubation? Randomized comparison of I-gel and laryngeal mask airway

Ladny JR, Bielski K, Szarpak L, Cieciel M, Konski R, Smereka J. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 May; 35(5): 786-787

Manikin study to assess effectiveness of blind intubation through the i-gel, LMA Classic and a standard cuffed tracheal tube, performed by 34 nurses in CPR conditions across two scenarios (with and without chest compressions). Primary measure was time to intubation. i-gel recorded a lower median time to intubation and higher, statistically significant, successful insertion rates in both scenarios. Performing compressions doesn't significantly affect time to perform blind intubation in this setting, but reduces the effectiveness of first intubation attempt. i-gel was faster in both scenarios.

Link to abstract.

Comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope and blind intubation via the iGEL for intubation with cervical spine immobilization: A randomized, crossover, manikin trial

Gawlowski P, Smereka J, Madziala M, Szarpak L, Frass M, Robak O. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Mar; 35(3): 484-487.

Paramedics performed standard intubation and blind intubation in three airway scenarios. Results show that blind intubation with the i-gel was superior to ETI performed by paramedics.

Link to abstract.

Tracheal intubation through I-gel performed during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Wojewodzka-Zelezniakowicz M, Majer J. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jan 16.

Manikin study to compare the efficacy of ETI performed by 27 nurses using the i-gel as a guide with/without chest compressions. Results showed that in this scenario, nurses were able to perform blind intubation using the i-gel with 'high efficiency'.

Link to abstract.

Comparison of blind intubation through the i-gel and ILMA Fastrach by nurses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a manikin study

Melissopoulou T, Stroumpoulis K, Sampanis M A, Vrachnis N, Papadopoulos G, Chalkias A, Xanthos T. Heart Lung. 2014 Mar-Apr; 43(2): 112-6

A group of 45 nurses inserted the i-gel® and ILMA in a manikin with and without continuous chest compressions. ILMA proved more successful than the i-gel®, but continuation of compressions caused higher insertion times in both devices. Authors conclude that nursing staff can use both devices ‘as conduits with comparable success rates, regardless of whether chest compressions are interrupted or not’.

Link to abstract

Tracheal intubation through the i-gel® Supraglottic airway versus the LMA Fastrach®: A randomized controlled trial

Halgawi A, Massicotte N, Lallo A, Gauthier A, Boudreault D, Ruel M, Girard F. Anesth Analg. 2012; 114(1): 152-156

160 patients were randomised for blind intubation via i-gel® or LMA Fastrach®. First attempt and overall success rates were recorded and time to intubation was measured.

Link to abstract.