Related factors for ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway failure

  • Einar Sten Billefals-Vallejo Anesthesiology Department, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia.
  • Melissa Isaza-Sánchez Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia.
  • Lisa Melina López-Gil Universidad Icesi. Cali, Colombia.
  • Natalia Satizábal-Padridín a. Anesthesiology Department, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia. b. Clinical Research Centre (CIC), Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia.
  • Iván Fernando Quintero-Cifuentes a. Anesthesiology Department, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia. b. Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia.
Keywords: Ventilatory depression, Risk factors, ProSeal™ laryngeal mask, Airway management, Anesthesiology

Abstract

Introduction:

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a device for airway management that is easy to insert, safe, and efficient. However, there are associated complications that can lead to important patient morbidity and mortality, as ventilator failure, can occur with reported incidence between 0.2% and 4.7%. Male gender, advanced age, obesity, short thyromental distance, and poor dentition are known related factors to LMA failure.

Objective:

Determine the incidence of ProSeal™ LMA ventilatory failure and identify clinical related conditions.

Materials and methods:

Observational analytic study a group of adult patients with ProSealTM laryngeal mask for airway management. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 12.1 software. Bivariate analysis was done using Fisher's exact test or Chi2 as it corresponded with statistical significance defined as P value <0.05. Skewed logistic regression for multivariate analysis was performed for estimating adjusted odd ratios (ORs).

Results:

Incidence of ProSealTM LMA ventilatory failure was 5.2%. In the group of patients that presented failure, 69 were older than 75 years (OR=1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09, P < 0.001), 6 (23.1%) thyromental distance less than 6 x0200A;cm (OR = 2.48, 95% CI 0.93-6.62, P = 0.069), 5 (19.2%), inadequate anesthetic depth and/or laryngospasm (OR=5.78, 95% CI 2.23-14.96, P< 0.001) and 9 (34.6%) vintraoperative use of neuromuscular blockers (NMB) (OR=2.35, 95% CI 1.06-5.21, P=0.035).

Conclusion:

In patients with LMA management, the age, intraoperative use of NMB and inadequate anesthetic depth and/ or laryngospasm are clinical related conditions for ProSealTMLMA ventilatory failure.

References

1. Brain AIJ, London T. The laryngeal mask-a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983;55:801-805.

2. Kannan S, Harsoor S, Sowmiya L, et al. Comparison of ventilatory efficacy and airway dynamics between ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube in adult patients during general anesthesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:517.

3. Brain AJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’-a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000;84: 650-654.

4. Hagberg C. Benumof’s airway management: principles and practice. 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby; 2007;p449-459.

5. Stendall C, Glaisyer H, Liversedge T, et al. Paediatric supraglottic airway devices update. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology 2017;5 (suppl. 2):39-50.

6. Maitra S, Baidya DK, Arora MK, et al. Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel in adult patients under general anesthesia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth 2016;33:298-305.

7. Maitra S, Khanna P, Baidya DK. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014;31:266-273.

8. Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. The LMA SupremeTM supraglottic airway. Can J Anesth 2012;59:483-493.

9. Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS, et al. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:598-601.

10. Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, et al. A comparison of the i-gelTM with the LMA-UniqueTM in non-paralyzed anaesthetized adult patients. Anaesthesia 2009;64:1118-1124.

11. Jadhav P, Dalvi N, Tendolkar B. I-gel versus laryngeal mask airway-Proseal: comparison of two supraglottic airway devices in short surgical procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:221.

12. Timmermann A. Supraglottic airways in difficult airway management: successes, failures, use and misuse. Anaesthesia 2011;66 (suppl. 2):45-56.

13. Katz JA. 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and The Difficult Airway Society. Anesthesiology 2012;116:496.

14. Keith Rose F, Cohen MM. The airway: problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anesth 1994;41:372-383.

15. Hagberg C, Georgi R, Krier C. Complications of managing the airway. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2005;19:641-659.

16. Vissers RJ, Gibbs MA. The high-risk airway. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2010;28:203-217.

17. Saito T, Liu W, Chew STH, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for difficult ventilation via a supraglottic airway device in a population of 14 480 patients from South-East Asia. Anaesthesia 2015;70:1079-1083.

18. Saito T, Chew STH, Liu WL, et al. A proposal for a new scoring system to predict difficult ventilation through a supraglottic airway. Br J Anaesth 2016;117:i83-i86.

19. Jeffrey A, Hagberg C. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. Anesthesiology 2013;118:251-270.

20. Mauricio I, Arteaga A. Update on difficult airway management with a proposal of a simplified algorithm, unified and applied to our daily clinical practice [Actualización en vía aérea difícil y propuesta de un algoritmo simple, unificado y aplicado a nuestro medio]. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology 2018;46:55-64.

21. Berkow LC. Strategies for airway management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2004;18:531-548.

22. Nørskov AK, Rosenstock CV, Wetterslev J, et al. Incidence of unanticipated difficult airway using an objective airway score versus a standard clinical airway assessment: the DIFFICAIR trial-trial protocol for a cluster randomized clinical trial. Trials 2013;14:347.

23. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015;115:827-848.

24. Castro-Gómez A, Delgado A. Tracheal intubation in the prone position: Another way to access the airway. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology 2017;45:340-343.

25. Ramachandran SK, Mathis MR, Tremper KK, et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes from failed Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM: a study of 15,795 patients. Anesthesiology 2012;116:1217-1226.

26. Brimacombe JR, Verghese C. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg 1996;82:129-133.

27. Asai T, Brimacombe J. Cuff volume and size selection with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 2000;55:1179-1184.

28. Freeman J, Jackman S, Jackson J. Scobit: an alternative estimator to logit and probit. Am J Pol Sci 1994;38:230-255.

29. Abramson Z, Susarla S, Troulis M, et al. Age-related changes of the upper airway assessed by 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20 (suppl. 1):657-663.

30. Na HS, Jeon YT, Shin HJ, et al. Effect of paralysis at the time of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway insertion on pharyngolaryngeal morbidities. A randomized trial. PLoS One 2015;10:1-9. [ Links ]

31. Chen BZ, Tan L, Zhang L, et al. Is muscle relaxant necessary in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery with a ProSeal LMATM? J Clin Anesth 2013;25:32-35.

32. Sivarajan M, Joy J. Effects of general anesthesia and paralysis on upper airway changes due to head position in humans. Anesthesiology 1996;85:787-793.

33. Genez M, Küçükgüçlü S, Özbilgin S, et al. A comparison of usage of the laryngeal mask uniqueTM in denticulate and edentulate geriatric patients. Turk J Med Sci 2017;47:854-860.

34. Mohsenin V. Gender differences in the expression of sleep-disordered breathing: role of upper airway dimensions. Chest 2001;120:1442-1447.

35. Butterworth J, Mackey D, Wasnick J. Morgan & Mikhail’s clinical anesthesiology. Anesth Analg 2013;75:907-917.
How to Cite
1.
Billefals-Vallejo ES, Isaza-Sánchez M, López-Gil LM, Satizábal-Padridín N, Quintero-Cifuentes IF. Related factors for ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway failure. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2019 Jul. 1 [cited 2024 May 30];47(3):154-61. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/67

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2019-07-01
How to Cite
1.
Billefals-Vallejo ES, Isaza-Sánchez M, López-Gil LM, Satizábal-Padridín N, Quintero-Cifuentes IF. Related factors for ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway failure. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2019 Jul. 1 [cited 2024 May 30];47(3):154-61. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/67
Section
Original

Altmetric

Article metrics
Abstract views
Galley vies
PDF Views
HTML views
Other views
QR Code

Some similar items: