Background International neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation or >2 kg weight) when bag-mask ventilation (BMV) or tracheal intubation is unsuccessful. Previous publications do not allow broad LMA device comparison.
Objective To compare delivered ventilation of seven brands of size 1 LMA devices with two brands of face mask using self-inflating bag (SIB).
Design 40 experienced neonatal staff provided inflation cycles using SIB with positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) (5 cmH2O) to a specialised newborn/infant training manikin randomised for each LMA and face mask. All subjects received prior education in LMA insertion and BMV.
Results 12 415 recorded inflations for LMAs and face masks were analysed. Leak detected was lowest with i-gel brand, with a mean of 5.7% compared with face mask (triangular 42.7, round 35.7) and other LMAs (45.5–65.4) (p<0.001). Peak inspiratory pressure was higher with i-gel, with a mean of 28.9 cmH2O compared with face mask (triangular 22.8, round 25.8) and other LMAs (14.3–22.0) (p<0.001). PEEP was higher with i-gel, with a mean of 5.1 cmH2O compared with face mask (triangular 3.0, round 3.6) and other LMAs (0.6–2.6) (p<0.001). In contrast to other LMAs examined, i-gel had no insertion failures and all users found i-gel easy to use.
Conclusion This study has shown dramatic performance differences in delivered ventilation, mask leak and ease of use among seven different brands of LMA tested in a manikin model. This coupled with no partial or complete insertion failures and ease of use suggests i-gel LMA may have an expanded role with newborn resuscitation as a primary resuscitation device.
- laryngeal mask airway
- self inflating bag
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MBT is primary researcher responsible for study design, statistical analysis, writing of manuscript and review. AP contributed to participant education, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript construction and review. KL contributed to participant education, data collection and manuscript review. DG contributed to manuscript construction and review. JH contributed to programming of a customised respiratory data extraction algorithm, data interpretation and manuscript review. MH contributed by assisting in design, data collection, data analysis, writing the manuscript and review.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.