Efficacy of LMA gastro airway versus endotracheal tube for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under general anesthesia: a randomized trial.

Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2025.2479805

Anju Gupta, Pramod Kumar Garg, Rajeshwari Subramanium, Shalimar Shalimar, Deepak Gunjan, Soumya Jagannath, Karthik V Iyer, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra

{"title":"Efficacy of LMA gastro airway versus endotracheal tube for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under general anesthesia: a randomized trial.","authors":"Anju Gupta, Pramod Kumar Garg, Rajeshwari Subramanium, Shalimar Shalimar, Deepak Gunjan, Soumya Jagannath, Karthik V Iyer, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2479805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: LMA Gastro Airway (LGA) is an advanced airway device that allows simultaneous endoscopy and ventilation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It can be an alternative to an endotracheal tube (ETT) and hasten recovery from general anesthesia (GA). We aimed to compare LGA with ETT regarding recovery from anesthesia and adverse respiratory events.Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 60 adult patients undergoing ERCP under GA were included. The airway was secured with an ETT (Group A, n = 30) or LGA (Group B, n = 30). The primary outcomes were the emergence time and adverse respiratory events.Results: LGA and ETT effectively maintained ventilation with comparable respiratory adverse events. The success rate of insertion of LGA was high (92%), and the insertion time [median (IQR)] of LGA was significantly shorter [37 s (28-56) vs 14.5 s (11-21)] (p < 0.001). The emergence [8(6.0-13.3) vs. 3 (3-5)] and total recovery time [20.5(14.75-30) vs. 12.5 (8.8-19)] was considerably shorter with LMA Gastro, with similar postoperative complications. The endoscopic satisfaction [3 (2-3) vs. 2 (1-3), p < 0.001] was better in the ETT group.Conclusion: LGA provides faster recovery times with a similar safety profile to ETT. It is a suitable alternative to ETT for patients undergoing ERCP.Trial registration: CTRI/2020/08/027268; Principal Investigator: Dr Anju Gupta, Date of registration: 20 August 2020.","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"387-395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2479805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: LMA Gastro Airway (LGA) is an advanced airway device that allows simultaneous endoscopy and ventilation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It can be an alternative to an endotracheal tube (ETT) and hasten recovery from general anesthesia (GA). We aimed to compare LGA with ETT regarding recovery from anesthesia and adverse respiratory events.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 60 adult patients undergoing ERCP under GA were included. The airway was secured with an ETT (Group A, n = 30) or LGA (Group B, n = 30). The primary outcomes were the emergence time and adverse respiratory events.

Results: LGA and ETT effectively maintained ventilation with comparable respiratory adverse events. The success rate of insertion of LGA was high (92%), and the insertion time [median (IQR)] of LGA was significantly shorter [37 s (28-56) vs 14.5 s (11-21)] (p < 0.001). The emergence [8(6.0-13.3) vs. 3 (3-5)] and total recovery time [20.5(14.75-30) vs. 12.5 (8.8-19)] was considerably shorter with LMA Gastro, with similar postoperative complications. The endoscopic satisfaction [3 (2-3) vs. 2 (1-3), p < 0.001] was better in the ETT group.

Conclusion: LGA provides faster recovery times with a similar safety profile to ETT. It is a suitable alternative to ETT for patients undergoing ERCP.

Trial registration: CTRI/2020/08/027268; Principal Investigator: Dr Anju Gupta, Date of registration: 20 August 2020.

查看原文本刊更多论文

LMA胃道气道与气管内管在全麻下治疗性内镜逆行胆管造影的疗效：一项随机试验。

目的：LMA胃道气道（LGA）是一种先进的气道设备，可以在内镜逆行胆管胰胆管造影（ERCP）中通过单独的导管和通气同时进行内镜检查。它可以替代气管内插管（ETT），并通过避免使用肌肉松弛剂来加速全身麻醉（GA）的恢复。我们的目的是比较LGA和ETT在麻醉恢复和不良呼吸事件方面的差异。方法：在本随机对照试验中，纳入60例在GA下接受ERCP的成年患者。采用ETT （A组，n = 30）或LGA （B组，n = 30）固定气道。主要结局是出现时间和不良呼吸事件。结果：LGA和ETT能有效维持通气，呼吸不良事件相似。LGA的置入成功率高（92%），置入时间[中位（IQR）]显著缩短[37s(28-56) vs . 14.5s(11-21)]。结论：LGA提供了更快的恢复时间，安全性与ETT相似。对于接受ERCP的患者，它是ETT的合适替代方法。试验报名：CTRI/2020/08/027268；首席研究员：Anju Gupta博士，注册日期：2020年8月20日。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert review of medical devices

自引率

0.00%

发文量