i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i-gelTM and AuraOnceTM supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards

Adelborg K, Al-Mashhadi RH, Nielsen LH, Dalgas C, Mortensen MB and Løfgren B. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr; 69(4): 343-7

Forty lifeguards took part in this manikin study, where time to ventilation and proportion of successful ventilations (both with and without ‘concurrent’ chest compressions) were measured. Mean time to ventilate with i-gel® was 15.6 seconds, compared to 35.2 for Soft Seal and 35.1 for AuraOnce. Authors concluded that ‘most lifeguards preferred the i-gel®’.

Link to abstract

Resuscitation highlights in 2013: Part 2

Nolan JP, Ornato JP, Parr MJA, Perkins GD, Soar J. Resuscitation 2014; 85(4): 437-43

Second of two editorials summarising key papers published in Resuscitation in 2013, covering advanced life support and post-resuscitation care, amongst other topics.

Link to abstract

Oxygenation, Ventilation and Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Review

Henlin T, Michalek P, Tyll T, Hinds JD, Dobias M. Biomed Res Int; 2014: 376871. Epub 2014 Mar 3

A comprehensive review assessing the changing core protocols of treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), covering basic life support (BLS), oxygenation, passive oxygenation, airway management strategies, intubation, use of supraglottic airways and post-return of spontaneous
circulation (ROSC) care.

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