Proseal LMA vs Air-Q LMA vs Ambu AurGain LMANCT04045899
Comparison Between Three Supraglottic Airway Devices ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain
A study testing Proseal LMA, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain LMA in people with Proseal LMA vs Air-Q LMA vs Ambu AurGain LMA, run by Dr.Mahak Mehta.
Trial summary
The present study entitled, "A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain in mechanically ventilated patients." was conducted in during the period Nov 2016 - Aug 2018. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Proseal LMA vs Air-Q LMA vs Ambu AurGain LMA
- What is being tested?
- Proseal LMA, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain LMA
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 150 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Nov 2016to Aug 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- • Patients with anticipated difficult airway(Mouth opening of <2 finger, Mallampati class 4,limited neck extension, history of previous difficult intubation).
- Restricted mouth opening
- Pregnant females
- Cervical spine disease
- Obese with body mass index ≥25kg/m2.
- Patients with upper respiratory tract infections.
Show all 9Show fewer
- Patients at the risk of gastroesophageal regurgitation (eg hiatus hernia,sepsis, Diabetes Mellitus,obesity,pregnancy or a history of upper gastrointestinal surgery)
- Laparoscopic surgeries
- Patients with airway related conditions such as trismus,trauma or mass.
About this study
Official title: "A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain in Mechanically Ventilated Patients"
The present study entitled, "A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain in mechanically ventilated patients." was conducted in during the period Nov 2016 - Aug 2018.
The Aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of ProSeal-LMA (P-LMA) ,Air-Q and Ambu AuraGain in terms of efficacy and safety in anaesthetized and paralyzed patients on mechanical ventilation undergoing elective surgical procedures.
Read more
Objective was to study the three supraglottic devices with respect to following parameters:-number of insertion attempts and overall success rate, ease of insertion of device, time taken for placement of device, airway sealing pressure, glottic view, number of attempts of gastric tube placement, hemodynamic parameters: heart rate and mean arterial pressure: pre-insertion and 0,1,3,5 and 10 minutes post insertion and complications noted if any: blood staining of device and tongue, lip and dental trauma, laryngospasm ,sore throat, dysphagia, hoarseness of voice.
It was a randomized prospective single blind comparative study comprised of 150 ASA I - II patients, aged 18-65 years of either sex who weighed between 40 to 60 kg scheduled for elective surgical procedure of duration not more than 90 mins. After a thorough pre-anaesthetic check-up, informed written consent was obtained and the patients were randomized into 3 groups of 50 patients each as Group P(Proseal), Group Q (Air Q) and Group A (AuraGain) by computer generated randomization sequence.
Read the detailed description
In this study PLMA, Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGain were compared undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Primary outcome measure was insertion time. Airway sealing pressure,ease of insertion, number of attempts,overall success rate, glottis view,number of attempts of gastric tube placement , hemodynamic parameters and complications were also compared.
After approval from the institutional ethical committee, 150 patients were studied in a randomised prospective study, designed to compare PLMA , Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGain .The period of the study was from nov 2016 to aug 2018. This study was conducted according to Good Clinical Practice standards and the Helsinki Declaration.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients, between 18-65 years of age, weighing from 40 to 60 kg of either sex, undergoing elective surgical procedures of duration not more than 90 minutes were selected for the study. The exclusion criteria included patients with anticipated difficult airway (mouth opening of <2 finger, Mallampati Score 4, limited neck extension, history of previous difficult intubation), upper respiratory tract infections,airway related conditions such as trismus, trauma or mass, cervical spine disease, obese with body mass index (BMI) ≥25kg/m2 ,pregnant females, patients at risk of aspiration (full stomach, hiatus hernia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, emergency surgery)and laparoscopic surgeries. Neck movement was assessed as Class: I-No reduction in movement, II-1/3rd reduction, III-2/3rd reduction, IV-Complete reduction.
Following detailed pre-anaesthetic check-up, informed written consent was obtained from all patients fulfilling the required criteria.Patients were randomly allocated into three groups namely Group P(ProSeal,n=50) ,Group Q (Air-Q®, n = 50) and Group A (AuraGain™, n = 50) using computer-generated randomisation sequence. Participants were assigned to specific groups by the operating room nurse in charge.
After attaching the standard monitors(ASA recommended), patients were pre-medicated with injection midazolam 0.05 mg/kg, glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, dexamethasone 4 mg and nalbuphine 0.02mg/kg intravenously. All patients were pre-oxygenated for 3 min, and anaesthesia was induced with injection propofol 2 mg/kg. Injection vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg was given for neuromuscular blockade.
PLMA or Air-Q® or AuraGain™ appropriate for weight or/and height was inserted as per the manufacturers guidelines.After successful insertion, the cuff was inflated with air according to the size and type of LMA as per manufacturers guidelines, to prevent audible and palpable air leak. An effective airway was confirmed by bilateral symmetrical chest expansion on manual ventilation, auscultation of breath sounds, square waveform on capnography. Devices were fixed with adhesive tape applied to the maxilla on one side of the patient's face and passed over and under the tube in a single loop before fixing to the opposite maxilla.
Anaesthesia was maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide and isoflurane and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Haemodynamic parameters[heart rate(HR), mean arterial pressure(MAP)]were monitored before and after the insertion of the device. A lubricated gastric tube was placed in the stomach through the gastric channel. At the end of surgical procedure, anaesthesia was discontinued and residual neuromuscular blockade reversed with injection neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, followed by device removal. Complication if any was noted.
Insertion time, number of insertion attempts, overall success rate, ease of insertion, airway sealing pressure, glottis view, number of attempts of gastric tube insertion, hemodynamic parameters (HR and MAP) preinduction, induction and 1,3,5 and 10mins post induction and complications were noted. One attempt was defined as insertion of the LMA between the teeth until the LMA will be deemed to be correctly placed and its cuff will be properly inflated. In case of insertion attempts, maximum of three attempts were allowed. An attempt was considered unsuccessful, if there was failure to negotiate the device beyond oropharynx, significant leak present (both audible and auscultatory) or inadequate ventilation with EtCO2>45 mmHg. Failure of a device was defined as three unsuccessful insertion attempts or inadequate ventilation. After failure of three attempts, intubation was performed using conventional rigid laryngoscopy and case was recorded as failed and also deleted from the study. The ease of insertion of device based on Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) was recorded.0 was considered the easiest insertion of device and 10 being the most difficult insertion.Insertion time was defined as time interval (in seconds) elapsed from insertion of LMA between the dental arches until the confirmation of successful ventilation determined by chest wall movement, auscultation of breath sounds and square wave capnographic curves and no oropharyngeal leak with peak airway pressure ≥ 20cmH2O, which was recorded by an independent observer.The airway sealing pressure was measured by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at a fixed gas flow of 3 L/min and recording the airway pressure at which equilibrium is reached. At this stage, a leak at mouth and stomach was ascertained. Glottic viewing was assessed by insertion of the fibreoptic bronchoscope through the airway channel of the respective LMA.A maximum of two attempts were allowed for gastric tube placement. Its correct placement was confirmed by injection of air and epigastric auscultation or aspiration of gastric contents. Failure was defined as inability to advance the orogastric tube into the stomach within two attempts. Blood staining of the device and tongue, lip or dental trauma was noted. Incidence of laryngospasm or hypoxia (defined as oxygen saturation <92%), if any, in intra-operative period was noted and managed accordingly. In post-operative period, an investigator blinded to study asked the patients about the signs of sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness of voice. Incidence of hoarseness and sore throat, whether present or absent, were enquired in 24 h post-operatively.
The primary outcome measure of the study was insertion time. Based on a previous study investigators found mean insertion time in PLMA group was 23.43 seconds and SD of 3.54. Based on that, taking alpha 0.05, β =0.90 and 25% difference between the means as significant, investigators calculated 47 patients were required in each group; hence, the sample size was increased to 50 patients each.
The data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and analysed using SPSS statistics software version 24 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous numerical variables were presented as mean (standard deviation) and intergroup differences were compared using one-way analysis of variance with post hoc correction. Categorical variables were presented as ratio or as n (%) and inter-group differences were compared using Kruskall-Wallis test. The P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
- Being tested
- Proseal LMA, Air-Q LMA, Ambu AuraGain LMA
- Keywords
- Comparison of device
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Proseal LMADevice
The Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway (p-LMA) has a dual cuff modified to provide better sealing, and a drainage tube for gastric tube insertion. These features attribute in increasing the safety of the p-LMA when used with positive pressure ventilation.
Air-Q LMADevice
Air-Q LMA has a self-pressurizing cuff which inflates to adequate pressure during positive pressure ventilation thus eliminating the adverse effects of cuff over inflation associated with the use of Supraglottic airway device with an inflatable cuff.
Ambu AuraGain LMADevice
The AmbuAuraGain™ is a disposable, preformed second generation SAD, anatomically curved with integrated gastric access and intubation capability, taking patient safety and airway management efficiency to a new level.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Group | Active comparator | ProSeal LMA was inserted in 50 patients Receives: Device: Proseal LMA |
| Air-Q LMA Group | Experimental | Air-Q LMA was inserted in 50 patients Receives: Device: Air-Q LMA |
| Ambu AuraGain LMA Group | Experimental | Ambu AuraGain was inserted in 50 patients Receives: Device: Ambu AuraGain LMA |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Insertion Time of device measured in seconds
Time of insertion:
The time interval(seconds) elapsed from insertion of SAD between the dental arches until the confirmation of successful ventilation determined by chest wall movement,auscultation of breath sounds and square wave capnographic curves and no oropharyngeal leak with peak airway pressure >/= 20 cm of H2O.The time will be measured with the help of stop watch.
Measured: 10 minutes
Secondary outcomes (8)
Number of attempts of insertion of device
Attempt will be defined as insertion of the LMA between the teeth until the LMA will be deemed to be correctly placed and its cuff will be properly inflated.
A maximum of three attempts will be allowed. An attempt will be considered unsuccessful if -
- Failure to negotiate beyond oropharynx.
- Significant Leak present (both audible and auscultatory)
- Inadequate ventilation to be confirmed by Et-CO2 >45 mmHg. Failure of a device is identified as three unsuccessful insertion attempts or inadequate ventilation.
After failure of three attempts intubation will be performed using conventional rigid laryngoscopy and case will be recorded as failed.
Measured: 15 minutes
Ease of insertion of device measured via VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE
The ease of insertion of device based on VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE will be recorded.(0=easiest insertion of device,10=most difficult insertion)
Measured: 15 minutes
Airway Sealing Pressure of device measured in mmHg
The airway sealing pressure is measured at cuff pressure of 60 cmH2O by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at a fixed gas flow of 3L/min and recording the airway pressure at which equilibrium is reached. At this stage a leak at mouth and stomach is ascertained.
Measured: 15 minutes
Glottic View through the device measured in %
Glottic viewing will be assessed by insertion of the fibreoptic bronchoscope through the airway channel of the respective SGA devices.
Measured: 10 minutes
Number of attempts of gastric tube placement
A maximum of two attempts were allowed for gastric tube placement. Its correct placement confirmed by injection of air and epigastric auscultation or aspiration of gastric contents. Failure was defined as inability to advance the orogastric tube into the stomach within two attempts.
Measured: 20 minutes
Complications
- Note for any Blood staining of the device and tongue, lip and dental trauma.
- Incidence of Laryngospasm in intra operative period will be noted and managed accordingly.
- Sore Throat, Dysphagia and Hoarseness of voice.
In post-operative period an investigator blinded to study, will ask the patients about the signs of:
- Sore throat
- Dysphagia.
- Hoarseness of voice.
Sore throat will be assessed to a score of 0-3:
0: No pain
- Mild pain
- moderate pain
- Severe pain
Dysphagia and hoarseness in voice was assessed on a score of 0-1:
0: Absent
1: Present
Measured: 2hours
Mean Blood Pressure measured in mmHg
Preinsertion ,0,1,3,5 and 10 minutes post insertion
Measured: 30 minutes
Heart Rate measured in beats per minute
Preinsertion ,0,1,3,5 and 10 minutes post insertion
Measured: 30 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Aug 2019
- Study startNov 2016
- Primary completionAug 2018
- Study completionAug 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (19)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Proseal LMA vs Air-Q LMA vs Ambu AurGain LMAStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Methods:This prospective, randomised, single-blind study was conducted on 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, randomly allocated into 3 groups, undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.PLMATM, Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGainTM appropriate for weight or/and height was inserted.Primary outcome measure was insertion time.Airway sealing pressure,ease of insertion, number of attempts,overall success rate, glottis view,number of attempts of gastric tube placement , hemodynamic parameters and complications were also recorded.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Dr.Mahak Mehta
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Dr.Mahak Mehta, Government Medical College, Haldwani
- Investigators
- MAHAK MEHTA, MD, Principal investigator, M.B.B.S M.D Anaesthesia GMC Haldwani(Nainital)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04045899
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 328/GMC/IEC/2016/Reg.No.280
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 12 Mar 2019
- Last updated
- 6 Aug 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
1. Sood J. Laryngeal mask airway and its variants. Indian J Anaesth. 2005;49(4):275-80.
Singh K, Gurha P. Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2017 Jun;61(6):469-474. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_163_17.
PubMed 28655951Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, Chung F. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):602-7. doi: 10.1097/eja.0b013e32833679e3.
PubMed 2054017213. Soliman HF. Insertion characteristics of three supraglottic airway devices: A randomized comparative trial. Ain-Shams J Anaesthesiol. 2016;9(2):212-8.
14.Abdel-Halim TM, El Enin MA, Elgoushi MM, Afifi MG, Atwa HS. Comparative study between Air-Q and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway when used as conduit for fiber-optic. Egyptian J Anaesth. 2014;30(2):107-13.
Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2002 Dec;20(4):871-91. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8537(02)00044-5.
PubMed 12512267Brimacombe J, Keller C, Boehler M, Puhringer F. Positive pressure ventilation with the ProSeal versus classic laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study of healthy female patients. Anesth Analg. 2001 Nov;93(5):1351-3, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200111000-00064.
PubMed 11682428Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Han S, Andrei A, Joffe AM. The air-Q((R)) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM) : a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia. 2011 Dec;66(12):1093-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06863.x. Epub 2011 Aug 22.
PubMed 21880031Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Gebhardt ER, Johnson K, De Oliveira GS. A randomised comparison of the Ambu(R) AuraGain and the LMA(R) supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2016 Feb;71(2):205-12. doi: 10.1111/anae.13330. Epub 2015 Dec 9.
PubMed 266481734. Youssef MM, Lofty M, Hammad Y, Elmenshawy E. Comparative study between LMA-Proseal™ and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients. Egyptian J Anaesth. 2014;30(3):227-33.
5. Sethi S, Maitra S, Saini V, Samara T. Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: a randomized controlled trial. Egyptian J Anaesthes. 2017;33(2):137-40.
Joshi R, Rudingwa P, Kundra P, Panneerselvam S, Mishra SK. Comparision of Ambu AuraGain and LMA(R) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation. Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Jun;62(6):455-460. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_86_18.
PubMed 29962528Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agro F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, Garcia de Lucas E, Capdevilla X, Brimacombe N. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology. 2002 Feb;96(2):289-95. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200202000-00011.
PubMed 11818758Parikh DA, Jain RA, Lele SS, Tendolkar BA. A cohort evaluation of clinical use and performance characteristics of Ambu(R) AuraGain: A prospective observational study. Indian J Anaesth. 2017 Aug;61(8):636-642. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_285_17.
PubMed 28890558Wong DT, Ooi A, Singh KP, Dallaire A, Meliana V, Lau J, Chung F, Singh M, Wong J. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the Ambu(R) AuraGain and the LMA(R) Supreme supraglottic airways: a randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2018 Jul;65(7):797-805. doi: 10.1007/s12630-018-1120-4. Epub 2018 Mar 26.
PubMed 29582360
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Aug 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- "A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain in Mechanically Ventilated Patients"
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04045899
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 328/GMC/IEC/2016/Reg.No.280
- Keywords
- Comparison of device
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Dr.Mahak MehtaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Aug 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The present study entitled, "A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain in mechanically ventilated patients." was conducted in during the period Nov 2016 - Aug 2018.
The Aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance of ProSeal-LMA (P-LMA) ,Air-Q and Ambu AuraGain in terms of efficacy and safety in anaesthetized and paralyzed patients on mechanical ventilation undergoing elective surgical procedures.
Objective was to study the three supraglottic devices with respect to following parameters:-number of insertion attempts and overall success rate, ease of insertion of device, time taken for placement of device, airway sealing pressure, glottic view, number of attempts of gastric tube placement, hemodynamic parameters: heart rate and mean arterial pressure: pre-insertion and 0,1,3,5 and 10 minutes post insertion and complications noted if any: blood staining of device and tongue, lip and dental trauma, laryngospasm ,sore throat, dysphagia, hoarseness of voice.
It was a randomized prospective single blind comparative study comprised of 150 ASA I - II patients, aged 18-65 years of either sex who weighed between 40 to 60 kg scheduled for elective surgical procedure of duration not more than 90 mins. After a thorough pre-anaesthetic check-up, informed written consent was obtained and the patients were randomized into 3 groups of 50 patients each as Group P(Proseal), Group Q (Air Q) and Group A (AuraGain) by computer generated randomization sequence.
Detailed description
In this study PLMA, Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGain were compared undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. Primary outcome measure was insertion time. Airway sealing pressure,ease of insertion, number of attempts,overall success rate, glottis view,number of attempts of gastric tube placement , hemodynamic parameters and complications were also compared.
After approval from the institutional ethical committee, 150 patients were studied in a randomised prospective study, designed to compare PLMA , Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGain .The period of the study was from nov 2016 to aug 2018. This study was conducted according to Good Clinical Practice standards and the Helsinki Declaration.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients, between 18-65 years of age, weighing from 40 to 60 kg of either sex, undergoing elective surgical procedures of duration not more than 90 minutes were selected for the study. The exclusion criteria included patients with anticipated difficult airway (mouth opening of <2 finger, Mallampati Score 4, limited neck extension, history of previous difficult intubation), upper respiratory tract infections,airway related conditions such as trismus, trauma or mass, cervical spine disease, obese with body mass index (BMI) ≥25kg/m2 ,pregnant females, patients at risk of aspiration (full stomach, hiatus hernia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, emergency surgery)and laparoscopic surgeries. Neck movement was assessed as Class: I-No reduction in movement, II-1/3rd reduction, III-2/3rd reduction, IV-Complete reduction.
Following detailed pre-anaesthetic check-up, informed written consent was obtained from all patients fulfilling the required criteria.Patients were randomly allocated into three groups namely Group P(ProSeal,n=50) ,Group Q (Air-Q®, n = 50) and Group A (AuraGain™, n = 50) using computer-generated randomisation sequence. Participants were assigned to specific groups by the operating room nurse in charge.
After attaching the standard monitors(ASA recommended), patients were pre-medicated with injection midazolam 0.05 mg/kg, glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, dexamethasone 4 mg and nalbuphine 0.02mg/kg intravenously. All patients were pre-oxygenated for 3 min, and anaesthesia was induced with injection propofol 2 mg/kg. Injection vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg was given for neuromuscular blockade.
PLMA or Air-Q® or AuraGain™ appropriate for weight or/and height was inserted as per the manufacturers guidelines.After successful insertion, the cuff was inflated with air according to the size and type of LMA as per manufacturers guidelines, to prevent audible and palpable air leak. An effective airway was confirmed by bilateral symmetrical chest expansion on manual ventilation, auscultation of breath sounds, square waveform on capnography. Devices were fixed with adhesive tape applied to the maxilla on one side of the patient's face and passed over and under the tube in a single loop before fixing to the opposite maxilla.
Anaesthesia was maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide and isoflurane and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Haemodynamic parameters[heart rate(HR), mean arterial pressure(MAP)]were monitored before and after the insertion of the device. A lubricated gastric tube was placed in the stomach through the gastric channel. At the end of surgical procedure, anaesthesia was discontinued and residual neuromuscular blockade reversed with injection neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, followed by device removal. Complication if any was noted.
Insertion time, number of insertion attempts, overall success rate, ease of insertion, airway sealing pressure, glottis view, number of attempts of gastric tube insertion, hemodynamic parameters (HR and MAP) preinduction, induction and 1,3,5 and 10mins post induction and complications were noted. One attempt was defined as insertion of the LMA between the teeth until the LMA will be deemed to be correctly placed and its cuff will be properly inflated. In case of insertion attempts, maximum of three attempts were allowed. An attempt was considered unsuccessful, if there was failure to negotiate the device beyond oropharynx, significant leak present (both audible and auscultatory) or inadequate ventilation with EtCO2>45 mmHg. Failure of a device was defined as three unsuccessful insertion attempts or inadequate ventilation. After failure of three attempts, intubation was performed using conventional rigid laryngoscopy and case was recorded as failed and also deleted from the study. The ease of insertion of device based on Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) was recorded.0 was considered the easiest insertion of device and 10 being the most difficult insertion.Insertion time was defined as time interval (in seconds) elapsed from insertion of LMA between the dental arches until the confirmation of successful ventilation determined by chest wall movement, auscultation of breath sounds and square wave capnographic curves and no oropharyngeal leak with peak airway pressure ≥ 20cmH2O, which was recorded by an independent observer.The airway sealing pressure was measured by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at a fixed gas flow of 3 L/min and recording the airway pressure at which equilibrium is reached. At this stage, a leak at mouth and stomach was ascertained. Glottic viewing was assessed by insertion of the fibreoptic bronchoscope through the airway channel of the respective LMA.A maximum of two attempts were allowed for gastric tube placement. Its correct placement was confirmed by injection of air and epigastric auscultation or aspiration of gastric contents. Failure was defined as inability to advance the orogastric tube into the stomach within two attempts. Blood staining of the device and tongue, lip or dental trauma was noted. Incidence of laryngospasm or hypoxia (defined as oxygen saturation <92%), if any, in intra-operative period was noted and managed accordingly. In post-operative period, an investigator blinded to study asked the patients about the signs of sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness of voice. Incidence of hoarseness and sore throat, whether present or absent, were enquired in 24 h post-operatively.
The primary outcome measure of the study was insertion time. Based on a previous study investigators found mean insertion time in PLMA group was 23.43 seconds and SD of 3.54. Based on that, taking alpha 0.05, β =0.90 and 25% difference between the means as significant, investigators calculated 47 patients were required in each group; hence, the sample size was increased to 50 patients each.
The data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and analysed using SPSS statistics software version 24 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous numerical variables were presented as mean (standard deviation) and intergroup differences were compared using one-way analysis of variance with post hoc correction. Categorical variables were presented as ratio or as n (%) and inter-group differences were compared using Kruskall-Wallis test. The P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Methods:This prospective, randomised, single-blind study was conducted on 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, randomly allocated into 3 groups, undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.PLMATM, Air-Q® and Ambu AuraGainTM appropriate for weight or/and height was inserted.Primary outcome measure was insertion time.Airway sealing pressure,ease of insertion, number of attempts,overall success rate, glottis view,number of attempts of gastric tube placement , hemodynamic parameters and complications were also recorded.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Group | Active comparator | Device: Proseal LMAProSeal LMA was inserted in 50 patients |
| Air-Q LMA Group | Experimental | Device: Air-Q LMAAir-Q LMA was inserted in 50 patients |
| Ambu AuraGain LMA Group | Experimental | Device: Ambu AuraGain LMAAmbu AuraGain was inserted in 50 patients |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- • Patients with anticipated difficult airway(Mouth opening of <2 finger, Mallampati class 4,limited neck extension, history of previous difficult intubation).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Proseal LMAThe Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway (p-LMA) has a dual cuff modified to provide better sealing, and a drainage tube for gastric tube insertion. These features attribute in increasing the safety of the p-LMA when used with positive pressure ventilation. | Device | ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Group |
| Air-Q LMAAir-Q LMA has a self-pressurizing cuff which inflates to adequate pressure during positive pressure ventilation thus eliminating the adverse effects of cuff over inflation associated with the use of Supraglottic airway device with an inflatable cuff. | Device | Air-Q LMA Group |
| Ambu AuraGain LMAThe AmbuAuraGain™ is a disposable, preformed second generation SAD, anatomically curved with integrated gastric access and intubation capability, taking patient safety and airway management efficiency to a new level. | Device | Ambu AuraGain LMA Group |
Primary outcome
Insertion Time of device measured in seconds
Time frame: 10 minutes
Time of insertion: The time interval(seconds) elapsed from insertion of SAD between the dental arches until the confirmation of successful ventilation determined by chest wall movement,auscultation of breath sounds and square wave capnographic curves and no oropharyngeal leak with peak airway pressure >/= 20 cm of H2O.The time will be measured with the help of stop watch.
8 secondary outcomes
Number of attempts of insertion of device
Time frame: 15 minutes
Ease of insertion of device measured via VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE
Time frame: 15 minutes
Airway Sealing Pressure of device measured in mmHg
Time frame: 15 minutes
Glottic View through the device measured in %
Time frame: 10 minutes
Number of attempts of gastric tube placement
Time frame: 20 minutes
Complications
Time frame: 2hours
Mean Blood Pressure measured in mmHg
Time frame: 30 minutes
Heart Rate measured in beats per minute
Time frame: 30 minutes
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Aug 2019.
- Background1. Sood J. Laryngeal mask airway and its variants. Indian J Anaesth. 2005;49(4):275-80.
- Background: PubMed 28655951Singh K, Gurha P. Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2017 Jun;61(6):469-474. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_163_17.
- Background: PubMed 20540172Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, Chung F. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):602-7. doi: 10.1097/eja.0b013e32833679e3.
- Background13. Soliman HF. Insertion characteristics of three supraglottic airway devices: A randomized comparative trial. Ain-Shams J Anaesthesiol. 2016;9(2):212-8.
- Background14.Abdel-Halim TM, El Enin MA, Elgoushi MM, Afifi MG, Atwa HS. Comparative study between Air-Q and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway when used as conduit for fiber-optic. Egyptian J Anaesth. 2014;30(2):107-13.
- Background: PubMed 12512267Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2002 Dec;20(4):871-91. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8537(02)00044-5.
- Background: PubMed 11682428Brimacombe J, Keller C, Boehler M, Puhringer F. Positive pressure ventilation with the ProSeal versus classic laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study of healthy female patients. Anesth Analg. 2001 Nov;93(5):1351-3, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200111000-00064.
- Results publication: PubMed 21880031Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Han S, Andrei A, Joffe AM. The air-Q((R)) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM) : a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia. 2011 Dec;66(12):1093-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06863.x. Epub 2011 Aug 22.
- Results publication: PubMed 26648173Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Gebhardt ER, Johnson K, De Oliveira GS. A randomised comparison of the Ambu(R) AuraGain and the LMA(R) supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2016 Feb;71(2):205-12. doi: 10.1111/anae.13330. Epub 2015 Dec 9.
- Results publication4. Youssef MM, Lofty M, Hammad Y, Elmenshawy E. Comparative study between LMA-Proseal™ and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients. Egyptian J Anaesth. 2014;30(3):227-33.
- Results publication5. Sethi S, Maitra S, Saini V, Samara T. Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: a randomized controlled trial. Egyptian J Anaesthes. 2017;33(2):137-40.
- Results publication: PubMed 29962528Joshi R, Rudingwa P, Kundra P, Panneerselvam S, Mishra SK. Comparision of Ambu AuraGain and LMA(R) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation. Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Jun;62(6):455-460. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_86_18.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
MAHAK MEHTA, MD principal investigator
M.B.B.S M.D Anaesthesia GMC Haldwani(Nainital)
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Proseal LMA, Air-Q LMA and Ambu AuraGain LMA in people with Proseal LMA vs Air-Q LMA vs Ambu AurGain LMA, run by Dr.Mahak Mehta.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 0 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Aug 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Insertion Time of device measured in seconds (time frame: 10 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04045899, which also lists 19 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Aug 2019.