i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

A comparison of the I-Gel supraglottic device with endotracheal intubation for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction coil treatment

Arevalo-Ludeña J, Arcas-Bellas JJ, Alvarez-Rementería R, Flandes J, Morís L, Muñoz Alameda LE. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Jun;31:137-41

Prospective observational study on 22 patients comparing the use of i-gel against orotracheal intubation. Tidal volume, peak pressure, gas leaks and adverse events were recorded. Authors conclude i-gel is 'an effective and safe alternative' to OTI in this scenario.

Link to abstract

Comparison of remifentanil EC50 for facilitating i-gel and laryngeal mask airway insertion with propofol anesthesia

Choi JB, Kwak HJ, Lee KC, Lee SR, Lee SY, Kim JY. J Anesth. J Anesth. 2016 Jun;30(3):377-83

Randomised study comparing 41 female patients across two groups: i-gel and LMA, undergoing anaesthesia. EC50 of remifentanil concentration for i-gel insertion was significantly lower.

Link to abstract

 

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review

Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, Chang JC, Park MK, You HS, Kim HJ, Ahn HS. J Int Med Res. 2016 Jun;44(3):405-18

Online searches of popular databases resulted in 14 randomised controlled trials being included. Overall, leak pressure was higher with ProSeal, but i-gel was faster to insert, had lower incidence of blood staining on removal and sore throat.

Link to abstract

Abandoning use of 1st generation SAD - Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Original post by Pearson K. Reply by Cook TM. Anaesthesia Correspondence Website. 2016. Accessed 22 May.

In the original post, and in response to Cook's study on abandoning vintage laryngeal masks (Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):497-9), Pearson cautions against the 'universal replacement of 1st generation devices' especially considering sub-group care (paediatrics), versatility, training and cost, and instead suggests there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Pearson also comments on the significant move towards the use of i-gel in her hospital.

In response to this, Cook suggests clinicians use the best performing and safest device where available as first choice. Cook makes mention of the two published meta-analyses on i-gel in children: by Choi GJ and Maitra S.

Link to abstract

Layperson mouth-to-mask ventilation using a modified I-gel laryngeal mask after brief onsite instruction: a manikin-based feasibility trial

Schälte G, Bomhard LT, Rossaint R, Coburn M, Stoppe C, Zoremba N, Rieg A. BMJ Open 2016;6(5):e10770

100 participants were analysed using a labelled i-gel with an integrated mouthpiece and asked to follow an instruction chart. 79% were able to ventilate the manikin effectively, with 90% using the correct turn and direction.

Link to abstract