Laryngospasm in pediatric anesthesia with laryngeal mask vs. endotracheal tube: non-inferiority clinical trial

  • Fabian David Casas-Arroyave a. Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia. b. Anaesthesia and Resuscitation Section, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
  • Olga Lucia Giraldo-Salazar a. Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia. b. Anaesthesia and Resuscitation Section, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
  • Santiago Medina-Ramírez Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia.
Keywords: Laryngismus, Anaesthesia, Child, Laryngeal Masks, Intubation, Intratracheal

Abstract

Introduction:

Airway-related problems are the most common perioperative complications in pediatric anesthesia and, among them, the most significant is laryngospasm. The type of device used to secure the airway has been found to be among the factors responsible for this outcome.

Objective:

To determine whether the use of the classic laryngeal mask (LM) creates a non-inferior risk of laryngospasm compared with the use of the endotracheal tube (ET) in children.

Method:

Non-inferiority, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with random assignment that included 260 children ages 2 to 14 years, American Society of Anaesthesiology I to III, taken to surgical procedures under general anesthesia. The primary outcome was the development of laryngospasm, and the need to exchange devices, airway trauma, and other respiratory complications were assessed as secondary outcomes. A 10% non-inferiority margin was selected for the difference between the 2 devices.

Results:

A total of 270 patients were recruited, and 135 were assigned to each group. Laryngospasm occurred in 3.3% of the patients, with an incidence of 5.2% in the LM group versus 1.5% for the ET group, for a difference of 3.7% and a 95% confidence interval (-0.7%, 7.9%). No differences were found among bradycardia, cardiac arrest, and death outcomes.

Conclusion:

The use of LM in children 2 to 14 years of age taken to various surgical procedures is not inferior or superior to ET in terms of the development of laryngospasm.

Trial Resgistration:

Clincaltrials.gov, NCT01288248.

References

1. Flick RP, Wilder RT, Pieper SF, et al. Risk factors for laryngospasm in children during general anesthesia. Pediatr Anesth 2008;18:289-296.

2. Bhananker SM, Chandra R. Anesthesia-related cardiac arrest in children: update from the pediatric perioperative cardiac arrest registry. Anesth Analg 2007;105:344-350.

3. Burgoyne LL, Anghelescu DL. Intervention steps for treating laryngospasm in pediatric patients. Pediatr Anesth 2008;18:297-302.

4. Al-alami AA, Zestos MM, Baraka AS. Pediatric laryngospasm: prevention and treatment. Curr Opin Anaesthesio 2009;22:388-395.

5. Tait AR, Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, et al. Risk factors for perioperative adverse respiratory events in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Anesthesiology 2001;95:299-306.

6. Olsson GL. Bronchospasm during anaesthesia. A computer aided incidence study in 136,929 patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1987;31:244-252.

7. Bordet F, Allaouchiche B, Lansiaux S, et al. Risk factors for airway complications during general anaesthesia in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2002;12:762-769.

8. O Neill B, Templeton J, Caramico L, et al. The laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients factors affecting ease of use during insertion and emergence. Anesth Analg 1994;78:659-662.

9. Harnett M, Kinirons B, Heffernan A, et al. Airway complications in infants: comparison of laryngeal mask airway and the facemask-oral airway. Can J Anesth 2000;47:315-318.

10. Christensen E. Methodology of superiority vs equivalence trials and non inferiority trials. J Hepatol 2007;46:947-954.

11. Green SM, Klooster M, Harris T, et al. Ketamine sedation for pediatric gastroenterology procedures. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001;32:26-33.

12. Schreiner MS, O’Hara I, Markakis DA, et al. Do children who experience laryngospasm have an increased risk of upper respiratory tract infection? Anesthesiology 1996;85:475-480.

13. Goldie S. No Inferiority Clinical Trials to establish effectiveness. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Paper on Internet. Cited July 3 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf.

14. Sinha A, Sood J. Safe removal of LMA in children-at what BIS? Pediatr Anesth 2006;16:1144-1147.

15. Orliaguet GA, Gall O, Savoldelli GL, et al. Case scenario: perianesthetic management of laryngospasm in children. Anesthesiology 2012;116:458-471.

16. Splinter WM, Reid CW. Removal of the laryngeal mask airway in children: deep anesthesia versus awake. J Clin Anesth 1997;9:4-7.

17. Samarkandi AH. Awake removal of the laryngeal mask airway is safe in pediatric patients. Can J Anaesth 1998;45:150-152.

18. Kitching AJ, Walpole AR, Blogg CE. Removal of the laryngeal mask airway in children: anaesthetized compared with awake. Br J Anaesth 1996;76:874-876.

19. Patel RI, Hannallah RS, Norden J, et al. Emergence airway complications in children: a comparison of tracheal extubation in awake and deeply anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg 1991;73:266-270.

20. Von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Davies K, Hegarty M, et al. The effect of deep vs. awake extubation on respiratory complications in high-risk children undergoing adenotonsillectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013;30:1-8.

21. Visvanathan T, Kluger MT, Webb RK, et al. Crisis management during anaesthesia: laryngospasm. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:e3.
How to Cite
1.
Casas-Arroyave FD, Giraldo-Salazar OL, Medina-Ramírez S. Laryngospasm in pediatric anesthesia with laryngeal mask vs. endotracheal tube: non-inferiority clinical trial. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2018Oct.1 [cited 2022Aug.14];46(4):292 -299. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/394

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2018-10-01
How to Cite
1.
Casas-Arroyave FD, Giraldo-Salazar OL, Medina-Ramírez S. Laryngospasm in pediatric anesthesia with laryngeal mask vs. endotracheal tube: non-inferiority clinical trial. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2018Oct.1 [cited 2022Aug.14];46(4):292 -299. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/394
Section
Original

More on this topic