Predictors and Clinical Outcomes from Failed Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique (TM) A Study of 15,795 Patients

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 5.88). 04/2012; 116(6):1217-26. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318255e6ab
Source: PubMed


Although the estimated risk of life-threatening adverse respiratory events during supraglottic airway device use is rare, the reported rate of events leading to failure of the airway device is 0.2-8%. Little is known about the risk-adjusted prediction of Laryngeal Mask Airway failure requiring rescue tracheal intubation and its impact on patient outcomes.
All adult patients in whom a laryngeal mask airway (LMA Unique™, uLMA™; LMA North America, Inc., San Diego, CA) was used in ambulatory and nonambulatory anesthesia settings were included. The primary outcome was uLMA™ failure, defined as an airway event requiring uLMA™ removal and tracheal intubation. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of difficult mask ventilation and unplanned hospital admissions.
Of the 15,795 cases included in our study, 170 (1.1%) experienced the primary outcome of uLMA™ failure. More than 60% of patients with uLMA™ failure experienced significant hypoxia, hypercapnia, or airway obstruction, whereas 42% presented with inadequate ventilation related to leak. Four independent risk factors for failed uLMA™ were identified: surgical table rotation, male sex, poor dentition, and increased body mass index. A 3-fold increased incidence of difficult mask ventilation was observed in patients with uLMA™ failure. Among outpatients with uLMA™ failure, 13.7% had unplanned hospital admission, 5.6% of whom needed intensive care for persistent hypoxemia.
The study supports the use of the uLMA™ as an effective supraglottic airway device with a relatively low failure rate. However, there are clinically relevant consequences of uLMA™ failure, as evidenced by the high rate of acute respiratory events and need for unplanned hospital admissions.

Download full-text


Available from: Satya Krishna Ramachandran, Jan 04, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We prove that the Gysin map is compatible with mixed Hodge Structures.
  • Source

    Anesthesiology 04/2012; 116(6):1183-5. DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318255e6cb · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The i-gel™ supraglottic airway device has been studied in randomized controlled studies, but it has not been evaluated in a large prospective patient cohort. Therefore, we performed this prospective multicentre observational study to evaluate success rates, airway leak pressure, risk factors for i-gel failure, and adverse events.Methods With Ethics Committee approval and waiver of patients' consent, data about anaesthesia providers, patient characteristics, and the performance of the i-gel were recorded in five independent hospitals in Switzerland over a period of 24 months. We analysed success rates, leak pressures, adverse events, and risk factors for failure.ResultsData from 2049 i-gel uses were analysed. Patients' mean age was 47 (range 6-91) yr. The primary i-gel success rate without changing size was 93; the overall success rate was 96. Insertion was deemed very easy or easy in 92. The mean airway leak pressure was 26 (8) cm H2O. The mean anaesthesia time was 67 (42) min. Risk factors associated with i-gel failure were males (P<0.001), impaired mandibular subluxation (P0.01), poor dentition (P0.02), and older age (P<0.01). Adverse events recorded were laryngeal spasms (n25, 1.2), blood stained airway devices (n79, 3.9), transient nerve damage (n2, 0.1), one case of transient vasovagal asystole, and one glottic haematoma. Conclusions The i-gel is a reliable supraglottic airway device failing in <5 and providing high airway leak pressures. Males, impaired mandibular subluxation, poor dentition, and older age are risk factors associated with primary device failure. Serious adverse events are rare.
    BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 09/2012; 109(6). DOI:10.1093/bja/aes309 · 4.85 Impact Factor
Show more