Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sethi, Sameer; Maitra, Souvik; Saini, Vikas; Samara, Tanvir (2017)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesiology, Air-Q™, Ambu® AuraGain™, Blind tracheal intubation, Adults, RD78.3-87.3
Background: This study has been designed to compare the performance of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask with the air-Q™ as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation in adult patients. Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial blind endotracheal intubation success rates were compared between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway in 90 adult patients. Patients were randomized in two equal groups: Group Ambu® AuraGain™ (n = 45) and Group air-Q™ (n = 45). Results: Time to insert the laryngeal airway was similar between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ (median [IQR] 13[12–14] s versus 14[12–16] s) and in all cases laryngeal mask insertion was possible in first attempt. Intubation success rate at first attempt was significantly higher in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ group (68.9% versus 35.6%; p = 0.002). Overall blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in air-Q™ group in comparison to Ambu® AuraGain™ (80% versus 53.3%; p = 0.007). Intubation time was significantly higher with Ambu® AuraGain™ (p < 0.0001; median difference 4.0 s, 95% CI 2.7, 5.3 s). Blind intubation was significantly easier in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ (42.2% intubation was graded as easy in air-Q™ instead of 22.2% in Ambu® AuraGain™, p = 0.04). Comparison of fibreoptic bronchoscopic glottis view was similar between the two devices (p = 0.07). Reported complications were infrequent and similar between the two devices. Conclusion: We conclude that air-Q™ laryngeal airway is superior to Ambu® AuraGain™ when used as a conduit for blind endotracheal intubation in adult patients. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2015/02/005553).

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article