Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 332 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts


 
Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 269-273  

Blind tracheal intubation through the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in pediatric patients: Reevaluation – A randomized controlled trial


Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Date of Web Publication28-May-2019

Correspondence Address:
Enas A. Abd El motlb
Department of Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_42_19

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Context: Some pediatric supraglottic airway devices have not been evaluated in a large perspective for blind intubation although they are validated as a conduit for fiberoptic-guided intubation. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the success rate of blind technique with correction maneuvers versus fiberoptic-guided intubation through the air-Q laryngeal airway in pediatric patients. Patients and Methods: One hundred and twenty-six pediatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two equal groups. The air-Q was placed in all patients as a conduit for tracheal intubation. Group B patients underwent blind intubation with correction maneuvers. Group F patients underwent fiberoptic-guided intubation. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the success rate of intubation or postextubation complications. Group F patients showed a significantly longer time to intubation and total time of the trial. Furthermore, Group F patients showed a significantly higher level of pre- and postintubation heart rate compared to Group B patients. Conclusion: Blind tracheal intubation in pediatric patients through the air-Q with correction maneuvers could be a good alternative for fiberoptic-guided intubation with stable hemodynamics and shorter time till intubation.

Keywords: Air-Q, blind intubation, correction maneuvers, fiberoptic-guided intubation


How to cite this article:
El-Emam ESM, El motlb EA. Blind tracheal intubation through the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in pediatric patients: Reevaluation – A randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res 2019;13:269-73

How to cite this URL:
El-Emam ESM, El motlb EA. Blind tracheal intubation through the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in pediatric patients: Reevaluation – A randomized controlled trial. Anesth Essays Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 13];13:269-73. Available from: http://www.aeronline.org/text.asp?2019/13/2/269/257320


   Introduction Top


According to airway management guidelines in both adult and children; the supra-glottic airway devices (SGAs) represent the plan ‘B’ in case of failed mask ventilation and intubation.[1]

Regarding tracheal intubation in pediatric patients, the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) is considered as an ideal SGA device for this purpose. The advantages of air-Q ILA are as follows: it can accommodate the passage of endotracheal tube (ETT) with its pilot balloon, its hyper-curved, wide and and short bowl allows both blind and fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB)-guided intubation.[2],[3]

The modern tip design prevents mask folding during insertion, and an accessory hole prevents downfolding of the epiglottis and improves airflow. The keyhole-shaped ventilating orifice of the air-Q (ILA) allows the direction of ETT in the midline toward the laryngeal inlet, and the mask ridges are enabled for better anterior mask seal.[4],[5],[6]

In spite of the previous advantages of air-Q, it has some complications. Time-consuming, lack of experience, and the presence of secretions may hinder its utilization. The available literature documented a low success rate for the blind intubation through the air-Q.[1],[7]

This study aimed to compare the success rate of blind intubation with correction maneuvers versus fiberoptic-guided intubation through the air-Q laryngeal airway in pediatric patients. We hypothesized that the use of correction maneuvers such as jaw thrust, external laryngeal manipulation, and clockwise rotation of the ETT may increase the success rate of blind intubation through the air-Q.

The first-trial success rate was the primary outcome of this trial, whereas the total success rate, number of attempts, time to ventilation (from beginning of air-Q insertion till normal capnography waveform), time to intubation (from beginning of manipulation of the ETT till normal capnography waveform), hemodynamics (heart rate [HR] and mean arterial pressure [MAP]; pre- and post-intubation), and complications of airway manipulation (blood staining of the device, postintubation croup, hoarseness; Graded 1–4 for non, mild, moderate, and severe, respectively) were secondary outcomes.


   Patients and Methods Top


Patients

Approval of the ethical committee of our medical institution (R/17.11.129) and registration in the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 03778762) were fulfilled. This randomized controlled study was conducted on 126 pediatric patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia over the period between December 2017 and September 2018. Written consent was obtained from the parents of each child enrolled in the study. The participants were between 2 and 7 years old, they were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical Status I–II, and their weights were between 11.5 and 24.5 kg. Exclusion criteria included obesity (BMI ≥95%) or history of gastroesophageal reflux disease or hyperactive airway patients and congenital disorders associated with difficult airway or any known difficult airway.

Randomization

Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 63 children each according to the order of computer-generated randomization program. Each patient was assigned to F or B according to his/her group followed by a number from 1 to 126 according to his/her order. All patients were intubated through the air-Q (disposable, Cookgas LLC, St. Louis, MO, USA; size 1.5 for 7–17 kg, size 2 for 17–30 kg). Patients of Group B were intubated blindly through the air-Q, whereas patients of Group F were intubated using FOB (Pentax, ultra-slim, size 3.5 mm OD) through the air-Q.

Study protocol

Demographic data (age, gender, and weight) were recorded. Patients' HR, NIBP, ETCO2, and SpO2 were monitored pre- and postintubation immediately. The air-Q cuff was inflated to prevent perilaryngeal leak using 5–10 mL air according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

Anesthesia was induced by sevoflurane (8%) in 60% air and 40% oxygen. Intravenous access was obtained after induction. The back of the cuff and the cavity ridges were lubricated by lidocaine 2% gel. With the cuff being partially inflated, the air-Q was inserted laterally at the angle of the opened mouth along the hard and soft palates; posterior pharyngeal wall till resistance of the upper esophagus was encountered by the tip of the cuff of the air-Q. Then, the device was left to be repositioned by inflating the cuff where its aperture closely faces the larynx as evidenced by adequate tidal volume (>5 mL/kg) and normal capnography waveform in a spontaneously breathing child. At this moment, time to ventilation was measured; then, patients were maintained on 3%–4% sevoflurane, rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was administered, and the leak pressure was measured (by giving 3–5 L/min fresh gas flow), whereas the adjustable pressure-limiting valve is closed till equilibrium where manometer pressure equals leak pressure).[3]

According to the group of the patient, a well-lubricated (using lidocaine 2% gel), appropriately sized ETT either blind (Group B) or FOB guided (Group F) was used. In Group B, jaw thrust and external laryngeal manipulation by an assistant anesthetist were afforded to each patient. The lubricated ETT was loaded with clockwise rotation of the tube, and tracheal intubation was confirmed by capnography waveform; then, the combined jaw thrust and external laryngeal manipulation were released. Then, after the connector of the ETT was removed, an exchange removal stylet was used for the removal of the air-Q after deflation of the cuff. The ETT was reconnected, and the capnography waveform was used for the confirmation.[1] At this moment, the time of intubation was measured.

In Group F, a 3.5-mm outer diameter FOB (ultra-slim, Pentax) loaded with the appropriately sized ETT was introduced through the air-Q till reaching the glottis (1st landmark), tracheal rings (2nd landmark), and carina (3rd landmark). The ETT (its connector was removed already before loading over FOB) was introduced through the air-Q. The cuff of the air-Q was deflated, and the device was removed over the FOB. While taking FOB out from the trachea; confirm ETT correct placement by observing the carina, tracheal rings and the tip of ETT. After FOB was removed, the ETT was reconnected and confirmed by capnography waveform. At this moment, intubation time was measured.[3]

For each patient of both the groups, two trials of intubation either blind or FOB guided were allowed till normal capnography waveform appears. The failure of the second-attempt blind intubation through air-Q shifts the trial to FOB-guided one, whereas the failure of the second-attempt FOB-guided intubation shifts it to conventional laryngoscopic one. Failed attempt was defined as absent chest rise, absent normal capnography waveform, and inadequate tidal volume (<5 mL/kg) or spontaneous dislodgement of the device. For reinsertion or reintubation, times of both trials were summated. Senior anesthesiologists from the team of pediatric anesthesia performed all the airway interventions.

Sample size

A prior G-power analysis was done to estimate the sample size. The primary outcome of this study was the first-trial success rate. Using Fisher's exact test and assuming α (Type I error) = 0.05 and β (Type II error) = 0.2 (power = 80%), 58 patients per group would be sufficient to detect the difference of 10% in success rate among the groups. A drop out 10% of cases was expected; therefore 63 patients were required in each group to detect the difference.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM Crop. Released 2013. IBM Statistics for Windows, version 22. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Crop). For quantitative data, normality was first evaluated with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and then analyzed with the Student's t-test. The data that do not have a normal distribution, as well as ordinal data, were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U-test. For binomial data, Fisher's exact test was used. All P values presented here were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


A total of 126 participants were enrolled in this study [Figure 1] with no significant difference regarding their demographic data [Table 1]. Group F patients showed a statistically significant higher level of HR compared to Group B both pre- and postintubation [Table 2]. Postextubation complications (croup and hoarseness) showed no significant difference between the groups [Table 3]. Group F patients showed a highly significant longer time to intubate and total time of the trial compared to Group (B) [Figure 2], while [Figure 3] does not carry any significant difference between both groups regarding success rate of intubation either in the first or the second trial or in the total success rate. In both the groups, the range of size of air-Q was 1.5–2 and of the ETT was from 4 to 5 mm internal diameter.
Figure 1: Consort flow diagram

Click here to view
Table 1: Demographic data of the studied groups

Click here to view
Table 2: Pre- and postintubation hemodynamic variables of the studied groups

Click here to view
Table 3: Postextubation complications (croup/hoarseness)

Click here to view
Figure 2: Time to ventilate, time to intubate, and total time. Group B: Intubated through air-Q blindly. Group F: Intubated through air-Q using FOB. **P ≤ 0.01

Click here to view
Figure 3: Success rates of intubation. Group B: Intubated through air-Q blindly. Group F: Intubated through air-Q using FOB

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


This study aimed to compare the success rate of blind intubation with correction maneuvers versus fiberoptic-guided intubation through the air-Q laryngeal airway in pediatric patients. In accordance with our initial hypothesis, the study documented a comparable success rate of both the techniques.

Supra-glottic airway devices (SGAs) represent an essential part of routine and emergency airway management in pediatric patients. Over 30 years ago, many of new SGAs have introduced into clinical practice.[8]

The air-Q is a laryngeal mask characterized by its oval shape. It has a short, wide, and hyper-curved airway tube. Keyhole-shaped ventilating orifice prevents epiglottis downfolding. However, downfolding can still occur in the younger age group.[9],[10]

A retrospective assessment of predicted and unpredicted difficult airways revealed that the air-Q was a good choice as a conduit for intubation in both groups.[11] A case series reported that the air-Q even the small-sized one allowed adequate ventilation in children with limited mouth opening and was still an effective conduit for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation with an appropriately sized cuffed ETT.[12]

Many studies have shown a preference for air-Q over classic laryngeal masks and the Ambu Aura-I as a conduit for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation in pediatric patients.[10],[11],[12],[13] This can be attributed to its ability to maintain the thin pediatric FOB in the midline position[3] and to facilitate tracheal intubation with larger cuffed ETT even with a smaller size of air-Q.[13] The air-Q has also been used during rapid-sequence fiberoptic intubations to relieve upper airway obstruction[13] and to allow oxygenation during fiberoptic tracheal intubations in children with anticipated difficult airways.[11],[12],[13]

Some pediatric SGAs are not evaluated for blind intubation although they are validated for fiberoptic-guided intubation.[9],[10] Thus, manufacturers do not recommend the air-Q and Ambu Aura-i for blind intubation to avoid epiglottic downfolding and potential injury to the epiglottis or the glottis.[14],[15] In spite of this, blind intubation through pediatric SGA continues to be practiced in case of a failed trial due to airway bleeding or if the pediatric FOB is unavailable.[16]

In this context, Jose et al. examined blind intubation through the air-Q versus intubating laryngeal mask airway. They reported a better vision of glottis with air-Q in the second attempt and a similar percentage of successful intubation between both devices. The authors recommended further studies to assess the efficacy of correction maneuvers to facilitate the intubation.[17]

Brueggeney et al. carried out a randomized trial on blind intubation in pediatric patients through the air-Q and Ambu Aura-i on the basis of fiberoptic view data (visualized blind intubation). They reported that blind intubation was possible in only 15% of cases with the air-Q. They attributed this low success rate to that the optimal fiberoptic view which is essential for successful blind intubation, was possible only in 21% of cases. The authors can't exclude alteration of the pat of ETT caused by the usage of fiberoptic. Furthermore, in true blind intubation, a little force may be helpful in some cases but with a risk of airway trauma or esophageal intubation.[1] Brueggeney et al. showed that correction maneuvers such as 180° rotation of ETT, head extension, and flexion may increase the success rate, and this expectation is confirmed in our study.

In a study carried out by El-Ganzouri et al., a success rate of 70% was reported for blind tracheal intubation through the air-Q compared to 97.5% for the freehanded fiberoptic-guided intubation.[6] However, in El-Ganzouri's study, the group of blind intubation showed a statistically significant higher median airway score compared with FOB-guided intubation. This could be the cause of the higher failure rate, besides that more trials of blind intubation were more traumatic compared to FOB-guided intubation. Furthermore, the authors did not apply any correction maneuvers during blind intubation apart from cricoid pressure. Regarding the age group, El-Ganzouri's study was carried on adults, so their results may be confined to this age group. Finally, the authors mentioned that their study was the first one in Egypt dealt with air-Q and attributed these results to the nonfamiliarity with the device.[6]

In the current study, the correction maneuvers, including jaw thrust, external laryngeal manipulation, and tube rotation during blind intubation through the air-Q offer success rates comparable to that of fiberoptic-guided intubation. Participants of the current study are of different age groups (pediatric patients), and any case of suspected difficult intubation was excluded from the study.

The time till tracheal intubation and the total time from insertion of the air-Q till successful intubation were significantly longer in fiberoptic-guided intubation group. On the other side, many of the correction maneuvers needed with the blind technique should be taken into consideration, especially with limited staff number. However, we noticed that external laryngeal manipulation was the most effective maneuver, and more studies are needed to validate this finding.

Limitation of the study

The study excluded participants with difficult airways, so the results may not be applicable to those patients. Furthermore, study participants were pediatric patients, so more studies are needed to test these results on other age groups.


   Conclusion Top


In pediatric patients, blind tracheal intubation through the air-Q with correction maneuvers has a comparable success rate to that of fiberoptic-guided intubation through the air-Q with stable hemodynamics and shorter time of intubation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Brueggeney MK, Nicolet A, Nabecker S, Seiler S, Stucki S, Greif F, et al. Blind intubation of anaesthetized children with supra-glottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015;32:631-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Eidem JM. Use of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for rapid-sequence intubation in infants with severe airway obstruction: A case series. Anaesthesia 2013;68:636-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Sohn LE, Jagannathan N, Sequera-Ramos L, Sawardekar A, Schaldenbrand K, De Oliveira GS. A randomised comparison of free-handed vs. air-Q assisted fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation in children < 2 years of age. Anaesthesia 2014;69:723-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hagberg CA. Special devices and techniques in the upper airway and anesthesia. Anesthesiol Clin N Am 2002;20:907-32.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, Pearce AC; Difficult Airway Society. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 2004;59:675-94.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
El-Ganzouri AR, Marzouk S, Abdelalem N, Yousef M. Blind versus fiberoptic laryngoscopic intubation through air Q laryngeal mask airway. Egypt J Anaesthesia 2011;27:213-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, et al. Comparative efficacy of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway during general anesthesia in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:6406391.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Jagannathan N, Ramsey MA, White MC, Sohn L. An update on newer pediatric supraglottic airways with recommendations for clinical use. Paediatr Anaesth 2015;25:334-45.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Jagannathan N, Kozlowski RJ, Sohn LE, Langen KE, Roth AG, Mukherji II, et al. Aclinical evaluation of the intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation in children. Anesth Analg 2011;112:176-82.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized trial comparing the ambu ® aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012;22:1197-204.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Jagannathan N, Kho MF, Kozlowski RJ, Sohn LE, Siddiqui A, Wong DT. Retrospective audit of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation in pediatric patients with a difficult airway. Paediatr Anaesth 2011;21:422-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jagannathan N, Roth AG, Sohn LE, Pak TY, Amin S, Suresh S. The new air-Q intubating laryngeal airway for tracheal intubation in children with anticipated difficult airway: A case series. Paediatr Anaesth 2009;19:618-22.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Barch B, Rastatter J, Jagannathan N. Difficult pediatric airway management using the intubating laryngeal airway. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:1579-82.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Auden SM, Lerner GM. Blind intubation via the laryngeal mask: A word of caution. Paediatr Anaesth 2000;10:452.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Fiadjoe JE, Stricker PA, Kovatsis P. Blind intubation through the air-Q laryngeal mask in children – A word of caution. Paediatr Anaesth 2010;20:900-1.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jagannathan N, Wong DT. Successful tracheal intubation through an intubating laryngeal airway in pediatric patients with airway hemorrhage. J Emerg Med 2011;41:369-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sastre JA, López T, Garzón JC. Blind tracheal intubation through air-Q® supralaryngeal device: comparison with intubating laryngeal mask airway. Department of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, University Hospital of Salamanca Walk of San Vicente. 2009:58-182.  Back to cited text no. 17
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Patients and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed342    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal