A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children

Does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?

Narasimhan Jagannathan*, Lisa Sohn, Katherine Sommers, Dawn Belvis, Ravi Dipak Shah, Amod Sawardekar, Jami Eidem, Justin DaGraca, Isabella Mukherji

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H2O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children. Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children. Materials and methods: One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H2O and 60 cm H2O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed. Results: Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H2O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H2O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H2O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U. Conclusions: Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H2O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)927-933
Number of pages7
JournalPaediatric Anaesthesia
Volume23
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2013

Fingerprint

Laryngeal Masks
Pressure
Stomach
Insufflation
Artificial Respiration

Keywords

  • Airway
  • Clinical trial
  • Devices

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{cda6bdc4f5334e769faf810ee8e828a5,
title = "A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children: Does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?",
abstract = "Background: The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H2O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children. Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children. Materials and methods: One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H2O and 60 cm H2O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed. Results: Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H2O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H2O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H2O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U. Conclusions: Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H2O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.",
keywords = "Airway, Clinical trial, Devices",
author = "Narasimhan Jagannathan and Lisa Sohn and Katherine Sommers and Dawn Belvis and Shah, {Ravi Dipak} and Amod Sawardekar and Jami Eidem and Justin DaGraca and Isabella Mukherji",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/pan.12145",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "927--933",
journal = "Paediatric Anaesthesia",
issn = "1155-5645",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children

T2 - Does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?

AU - Jagannathan, Narasimhan

AU - Sohn, Lisa

AU - Sommers, Katherine

AU - Belvis, Dawn

AU - Shah, Ravi Dipak

AU - Sawardekar, Amod

AU - Eidem, Jami

AU - DaGraca, Justin

AU - Mukherji, Isabella

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - Background: The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H2O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children. Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children. Materials and methods: One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H2O and 60 cm H2O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed. Results: Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H2O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H2O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H2O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U. Conclusions: Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H2O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.

AB - Background: The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H2O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children. Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children. Materials and methods: One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H2O and 60 cm H2O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed. Results: Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H2O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H2O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H2O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U. Conclusions: Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H2O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.

KW - Airway

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Devices

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883555302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883555302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/pan.12145

DO - 10.1111/pan.12145

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 927

EP - 933

JO - Paediatric Anaesthesia

JF - Paediatric Anaesthesia

SN - 1155-5645

IS - 10

ER -