Fiberoptic-Guided and Blind Tracheal Intubation Through iLTS-D, Ambu® Auragain™, and I-Gel® Supraglottic Airway Devices: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Trial

Abstract

Background: The use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) is becoming more widespread. However, there is little evidence to show which device is best in an emergent clinical scenario.

Objective: We compared both fiberoptic-guided and blind tracheal intubation through the Intubating Laryngeal Tube Suction-Disposal (iLTS-D), the AuraGain™, and the i-gel® in an airway manikin.

Methods: Thirty residents were included in a randomized trial to perform both fiberoptic-guided and blind tracheal intubation using the iLTS-D, the AuraGain, and the i-gel. The main endpoint was the total time taken to achieve successful fiberoptic intubation through the SAD. Additional endpoints included total time for blind intubation, SAD insertion time, tracheal tube insertion time, intubation success rate, fiberoptic view, and maneuvers performed to achieve tracheal intubation.

Results: All participants performed fiberoptic intubation using all three SADs on the first attempt. The total time to fiberoptic tracheal intubation using the i-gel, AuraGain, and iLTS-D was 42 s, 56 s, and 56 s, respectively. The blind tracheal intubation success rate was 80% with the iLTS-D, 43% with the i-gel, and 0% with the AuraGain. The total time for blind tracheal intubation through the i-gel and the iLTS-D was 29 s and 40 s, respectively. Laryngeal view grades were significantly poorer with the iLTS-D compared to the other devices. The iLTS-D required significantly more maneuvers to achieve successful tracheal intubation.

Conclusions: In an airway manikin, the iLTS-D, AuraGain, and i-gel appear to be reliable devices for airway rescue and fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The iLTS-D is recommended for blind tracheal intubation.

Keywords: simulator; supraglottic devices; tracheal intubation.