i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

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.

Pre-hospital i-gel blind intubation for trauma: a simulation study

Kim JG, Kim W, Kang GH, Jang YS, Choi HY, Kim H, Kim M. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 30;5(1):29-34. 

This prospective randomised crossover study was carried out to evaluate the performance and efficacy of the i-gel blind intubation (IGI) in airway management for pre-hospital trauma patients. Here, two blind intubation techniques were assessed (by 18 paramedics) using two supraglottic airway devices (IGI and LMA Fastrach) and a Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL).

Link to abstract.

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.