i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

An J, Nam SB, Lee JS, Lee J, Yoo H, Lee HM, Kim MS. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jan;96(1):e5801

Authors conducted a specialised search of study databases for eligible randomised controlled trials, setting device insertion time and first-attempt insertion success rate as their primary outcomes. In the 14 RCTs included, i-gel was faster than the majority of other supraglottic airways, with only three others recording shorter insertion times. Authors concluded that the 'unapparent advantage' of insertion success rate indicated the need for further evidence gathering in this area.

Link to abstract.

de Lloyd LJ, Subash F, Wilkes AR, Hodzovic I. Anaesthesia. 2015 May;70(5):591-7

Thirty anaesthesists each performed two tracheal intubations through each device. i-gel was the quickest device, with no failed intubation reported, compared to six for the Aura-I.

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. J Anesth. 2014 Oct;28(5):676-80

Insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured, with the latter unaffected by chest compression. 

Link to abstract

Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi SI. J Anesth 2014; 28(5): 676-80

A group of 20 novice physicians inserted the named devices into manikins with or without chest compressions, whereupon insertion time and successful ventilation rate were measured. In cases of successful ventilation, blind tracheal intubation via the inserted device was performed. Chest compression did not significantly decrease ventilation success rates in each device, however insertion time with i-gel® did suffer, according to the authors.

Link to abstract