A proposal for updating the classification of SADs and a new scoring system

The scoring and classification of supraglottic airways (SADs) is an interesting topic and currently the subject of much debate.

In 2011, a paper by Cook and Howes entitled, Recent developments in efficacy and safety of supraglottic airway devices, published in Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, described a classification of SADs into 1st and 2nd generation devices. The simplicity of this classification had immediate appeal and it quickly became established as the most widely used method for classifying SADs.

In A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices by White, Cook and Stoddart, a 1st generation device was described as asimple airway tube’ and 2nd generation as a device that ‘incorporates specific design features to improve safety by protecting against regurgitation and aspiration’.

Numerous publications, presentations and reviews subsequently utilised this classification, including the seminal  NAP4 report, the 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) and the Difficult Airway Society (DAS) on ‘Major Complications of Airway Management in the United Kingdom’, which made a number of recommendations regarding the use of SADs, and in particular the use of 2nd generation devices.

Its use has not been confined to the UK. The term is widely understood, accepted and used internationally. However, the classification of SADs as either 1st or 2nd generation was not the first classification.

In 2004, A Proposed Classification and Scoring System for Supraglottic Sealing Airways: A Brief Review by Miller was published in Anesthesia & Analgesia. This categorised SADs by the sealing mechanism. Three primary groups were identified:

  • Cuffed perilaryngeal sealers – such as the laryngeal mask airway
  • Cuffed pharyngeal sealers – such as the Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway (COPA™)
  • Uncuffed anatomically preshaped sealers – such as i-gel®

This classification was further subdivided, so cuffless perilaryngeal sealers could be either ‘directional’ or ‘non-directional’, and cuffed pharyngeal sealers could be designated as ‘with’ or ‘without’ oesophageal sealing. The sealing mechanisms were described in detail, in conjunction with force vectors, frictional force and whether a device was reusable or single-use; or incorporated a mechanism to provide additional protection against aspiration.

In 2009, five years after Miller’s paper, the International standard, ISO 11712:2009(E) Anaesthetic and respiratory equipment – Supralaryngeal airways and connectors was published. This standard included five classifications of supralaryngeal designs. Further details can be obtained from my 2012 blog post on the classification of SADs.

Whatever their merits or limitations, neither the classification in the international standard or Miller’s classification from 2004 ever enjoyed the same measure of popularity or widespread use currently evident for the categorisation in to 1st and 2nd generation. It is therefore particularly interesting to note a proposal by the originator of the 1st/2nd generation classification, Professor Cook, for an update in correspondence to the editor of the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA).

The proposal is to add the suffix ‘i’ to 1st or 2nd generation to indicate those devices which enable intubation (eg with success >50%) and then include ‘d’ for direct intubation and ‘g’ for guided intubation. The correspondence provides three examples of SADs classified in this manner, as follows:

  • cLMA – 1st generation ‘ig’
  • Intubating LMA – 1st generation ‘id, ig’
  • i-gel® – 2nd generation ‘ig’

Further discussion regarding an updated classification can be seen on the BJA Out of the blue E-letters archive. Alternative classifications have been proposed, including one by Michalek and Miller in, ‘Airway Management Evolution – In a search for an ideal extraglottic airway device.

The scoring, as opposed to the classification of SADs, also has an interesting history. Miller proposed a ‘provisional scoring of airways’ in his 2003 paper already discussed above. This identified desirable features of airways for routine use and then for each variable (easy insertion, seal for IPPV etc) assigned a score to each device. An updated version, also by Miller, along similar lines, appeared in the second chapter of the book, The i-gel supraglottic airway, edited by Michalek and Donaldson.

The most recent scoring of SADs appeared in a particularly interesting editorial entitled, ‘Time to abandon the ‘vintage’ laryngeal mask airway and adopt second-generation supraglottic devices as first choice’ by Cook and Kelly.

This editorial notes that SADs now have important roles beyond airway maintenance during routine low-risk surgery, including airway maintenance in obese and higher risk patients and airway management outside the operating theatre by experts and novices, most especially during cardiac arrest. Other examples are also provided.

As a result, the authors state it is worth considering ‘whether one device can be the best device for all such functions and perhaps considering whether some devices might no longer be needed. This discussion raises the question as to whether the cLMA (and equivalent SADs) have any role in modern airway practice or whether it is time to move on.’

The editorial discusses a number of interesting and important issues related to the use of SADs, including the question of safety and efficacy, what sort of evidence should be sought when deciding which SAD to select – particularly if safety is the major concern – and the value and limitations of randomised controlled trials in answering safety related questions. Other issues of importance are also discussed, so it is critical the editorial is read in its entirety to fully appreciate the context in which the scoring system included in the paper is provided.

The scoring system itself lists the desirable features of a SAD (airway seal, overall insertion success, aspiration protection, avoiding sore throat etc) for a specific application (routine use during elective anaesthesia, use by a novice at a cardiac arrest etc), provides a maximal score for each parameter according to its importance and then allocates a score for each parameter for each device.

The authors confirm the ranking and allocated scores are based on their judgement, clinical experience and knowledge of the literature and also acknowledge that others may allocate maximal and relative scores differently.

I will not spoil your enjoyment of this editorial by revealing the results here, except to say the authors comment that, in the tables provided, it is notable that different circumstances lead to different SADs ranking highest and that ‘the cLMA rarely ranks highly in such analyses.’

The four scoring tables provided are as follows:

  • Table One: Choice of airway for routine use during elective anaesthesia
  • Table Two: Choice of airway for use by a novice at a cardiac arrest
  • Table Three: Choice of airway for expert rescue after failed intubation during rapid sequence induction
  • Table Four: Choice of airway for rescue after failed intubation followed by intubation through the SAD

In summary, a number of methods for classifying and scoring SADs have been proposed over the years. The most popular and widely used classification remains the categorisation of SADs as either 1st or 2nd generation. An update to this classification has been proposed to indicate those devices which enable intubation and a new scoring system has been published as part of an editorial in the BJA.

i-gel is a registered trademark of Intersurgical Ltd. cLMA is an abbreviation for the LMA Classic. LMA and LMA Classic are registered trademarks of Teleflex Incorporated or its affiliates. COPA is a trademark of Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc.

Airways-2

CPR2As we wait for the new 2015 guidelines for resuscitation later this year, the protocol for a major study which should be completed in time for inclusion in the evidence review for the 2020 guidelines is now available on-line.

‘Project portfolio HTA 12/167/102, Cluster randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out of hospital cardiac arrest (Airways-2)’

Just over a year ago I uploaded a blog post entitled, REVIVE airway study – clinical outcomes and future plans. As well as reviewing REVIVE 1, the article discussed the future plans for REVIVE 2, now called AIRWAYS-2. Publication is expected in 2019, which if realised, will allow the study to be considered as part of the 2020 ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) process.

Why is this trial important? Well, AIRWAYS-2 is an attempt to provide the type of high quality evidence called for back in 2009 by Nolan and Lockey in an editorial entitled, ‘Airway management for OHCA – more data required’. In this editorial, the authors commented that, ‘Virtually all the existing data relating to the use of SADs in cardiac arrest are derived from low-level studies. There is an urgent need for high-quality randomised controlled trials of the use of SADs for CPR.’ However, such studies are not easy to perform in the pre-hospital setting.

The AIRWAYS-2 trial summary confirms that:

 ‘There is real uncertainty amongst paramedics and experts in the field about the best method to ensure a clear airway during the early stages of OHCA. We therefore propose to undertake a large research study to determine whether intubation or the best available SAD (called the i‐gel) gives the best chance of recovery following OHCA.’

Paramedics from the following four English NHS ambulance services will participate:

  • South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWAST)
  • East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  • East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
  • Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

 As randomisation by patient is impractical in the pre-hospital emergency setting, randomisation will be by paramedic. The trial population will include adults who have suffered an OHCA that is not due to trauma. Patient exclusion criteria includes an estimated weight <50kg and a mouth opening of <2cm.

The trial intervention control group is the current standard care pathway: Tracheal intubation. The Intervention group (i-gel) is referred to as follows:

 ‘Because of its speed and ease of insertion, and the fact that it does not require a cuff to be inflated, the i‐gel has emerged as the preferred SAD for use during OHCA in Europe.’

 The aim and objectives of the study are confirmed as follows:

 Aim:

  • To determine whether the i‐gel, a second‐generation SAD, is superior to tracheal intubation in non-traumatic OHCA in adults, in terms of both clinical and cost effectiveness.

 Objectives:

  1. To estimate the difference in the primary outcome of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at hospital discharge between groups of patients managed by paramedics randomised to use either the i‐gel or intubation as their initial airway management strategy following OHCA.
  2. To estimate differences in secondary outcome measures relating to airway management, hospital stay and recovery at 3 and 6 months (see section 4.6.2) between groups of patients managed by paramedics randomised to use either the i‐gel or intubation.
  3. To estimate the comparative cost effectiveness of the i‐gel and intubation, including estimating major in hospital resources and subsequent costs (length of stay, days of intensive and high dependency care, etc.) in each group.

The secondary outcomes include initial ventilation success, regurgitation/aspiration, the sequence of airway ventilations delivered and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Additional secondary outcomes will be recorded for patients who survive to hospital and to hospital discharge, including for the latter, Modified Rankin scale and quality of life at 3 and 6 months following OHCA.

It is stated that a 2% improvement in the proportion of patients achieving a good clinical outcome would be clinically significant. This study will also include an economic evaluation. It is estmated that 1,300 paramedics will participate and the cost will be over £2 million.

An Airways-2 web-site is now up and running, and includes an overview of the trial, details regarding the study team and an FAQ page.

Four years may seem a long time to wait and there is always the risk that by the time the results are ready to be published, the landscape of airway management during cardiac arrest has changed. However, it would be difficult to factor out such a risk, and AIRWAYS-2 can be seen as a significant attempt to provide the high level data regarding management of the airway during the initial stages of cardiac arrest we all want to see.

ILCOR, 2015 and the countdown to new guidelines

8704-000_i-gel_resus_mainAs 2014 draws to a close, it seems a good opportunity to look forward to 2015 and consider what the new year may bring. It does look set to be an interesting year. The inaugural European Games will be held in Baku in June, the 7th Rugby World Cup will take place in England in September and Resuscitation 2015 – The Guidelines Congress, will be held in Prague in October!

Sport can be unpredictable, but the winners of the 2015 Rugby World Cup will almost certainly come from one of just five or six nations. I doubt the new 2015 ERC Resuscitation guidelines will provide us with too many surprises either, and neither should they. The ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) and Consensus on Resuscitation Science and Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR), from which new guidelines are eventually developed, is a process that should ensure the right questions are asked, the relevant evidence is gathered and reviewed and a consensus on the science is obtained before any treatment recommendations are made. New guidelines then follow.

The ILCOR web-site provides the opportunity to review the current status of the PICO questions. In the Advanced Life Support (ALS) section, two questions in particular caught my attention:

Advanced airway placement (ETT v SGA)

Among adults who are in cardiac arrest in any setting  (P), does tracheal tube insertion as first advanced airway  (I), compared with insertion of a supraglottic airway as first advanced airway  (C), change ROSC, CPR parameters, development of aspiration pneumonia, Survival with Favourable neurological/functional outcome at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year, Survival only at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year (O)?

Airway placement (Basic vs Advanced)

Among adults who are in cardiac arrest in any setting (P), does insertion of an advanced airway (ETT or supraglottic airway) (I), compared with basic airway (bag mask +/- oropharyngeal airway) (C), change Survival with Favourable neurological/functional outcome at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year, Survival only at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year, ROSC, CPR parameters, development of aspiration pneumonia (O)?

Both of the above subjects have been discussed in previous blog posts. The subject of ETT v SGA was covered in a post from October 2012 entitled, ‘Supraglottic airways versus tracheal intubation for OHCA’ and the latter in a post from February 2013 entitled, ‘Pre-hospital airway management for patients with OHCA’.

Since these blog posts were written, additional evidence has been published and it will be interesting to see what conclusions there are from the SEERS/CoSTR process.

In the Basic Life Support (BLS) section, one question stood out as of particular interest:

 Passive ventilation techniques

Among adults and children who are in cardiac arrest in any setting (P), does addition of any passive ventilation technique (eg positioning the body, opening the airway, passive oxygen administration) to chest compression-only CPR (I), compared with just chest compression-only CPR (C), change Survival with Favourable neurological/functional outcome at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year, Survival only at discharge, 30 days, 60 days, 180 days AND/OR 1 year, ROSC, bystander initiated CPR, oxygenation (O)?

The subject of passive oxygenation has been covered in two blog posts on this site. The first, published in April 2012, asked the question, ‘Should we be passive about oxygenation?’ and the second, in October 2013, entitled, ‘Passive oxygenation – the jury is still out’, concluded that,

‘…whilst there appears to be very little new published data, passive oxygenation remains a subject of lively debate in resuscitation circles and is often mentioned in articles reviewing ventilation strategies and airway management in cardiac arrest. Before it slips from view due to a lack of new evidence, it is hoped a new wave of studies are already in progress and will soon emerge as peer reviewed published studies in the near future, enabling a more conclusive assessment to be made as to whether passive oxygenation has a useful role to play during CPR. Without doubt, at the present time, the jury remains out.’

I will be interested to see the conclusions  from the SEERS/CoSTR process on this very interesting subject.

There are many other questions of interest in the ALS and BLS sections, as well as in the Neonatal, Paediatric and Education sections, including use of Impedance Threshold Devices, Induced Hypothermia and Exhaled CO2 detection and esophageal detection devices.

As a big sports fan, I am looking forward to both the European Games and the Rugby World Cup, as well as the Cricket World Cup. However, even these major upcoming sporting events are not anticipated with quite the same excitement as Resuscitation 2015 – The Guidelines Conference! I just can’t wait!

Paediatric i-gel® – a review of the latest evidence

8202

In a blog post written in December 2012, the question was asked as to whether paediatric i-gel® was an advance over other supraglottic airways? The article reviewed the evidence already published and concluded that:

‘Clinical evidence takes time to build, and some of the studies looked at one size only and all studies have limitations. However, the above evidence suggests i-gel may yet prove to be “a genuine improvement on the pLMA”, as thought possible by White, Cook and Stoddart back in 2009.’

This was a reference to a comment in the excellent review article ‘A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices’ pubished in Pediatric Anesthesia by White et al, which aimed to present the evidence surrounding the use of currently available supraglottic airways (SADs) in routine paediatric anaesthetic practice. It was also one of the first papers to divide SADs in to first and second generation devices, although the first paper to describe the classification fully was ‘Recent developments in efficacy and safety of supraglottic airway devices’ by Cook and Howes. In the White et al review, first generation devices were described as simple airway tubes, and second generation devices, such as i-gel®, as incorporating ‘specific design features to improve safety by protecting against regurgitation and aspiration’.

The White et al review concluded that ‘The pLMA has yet to be outperformed by any other SAD, making it the premier SAD in children and the benchmark by which newer second generation devices should now be compared’.

Five years on and almost 2 years since my earlier blog post, what additional evidence has been published for the paediatric sizes of Intersurgical i-gel® and does this new data help us to draw a more definitive conclusion to the question I asked back in 2012?

The new data includes two meta-analyses and a number of comparative studies. There are also some interesting letters, review articles and one survey of current UK practice for paediatric SADs. The data ranges from an assessment of the effect of the device on intraocular pressure in paediatric patients who received sevoflurane or desflurane during strabismus surgery to fibreoptic assessment of laryngeal positioning to a clinical evaluation of airway management with the device during MRI examination.

The two meta-analyses were both published in 2014. The first, ‘A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel vs laryngeal mask airway in children’ by Choi et al included nine Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing i-gel to different types of laryngeal mask in children. The different types of laryngeal masks were the LMA ProSeal® (pLMA), the LMA Classic® (cLMA), the LMA Supreme® (sLMA) and the Ambu® AuraOnce™ (ALMA).

All four of these devices are quite different in design, and although there is a subgroup analysis for the different types of device, the overall conclusions are a comment on i-gel® in comparison to all the laryngeal masks as a collective group. The conclusions were that, ‘i-gel was similar to LMAs when used in children and delivered ventilation pressures 3cm H20 higher than LMAs. Few complications were reported with either airway.’

The other meta-analysis, ‘Evaluation of i-gel airway in children: a meta analysis’, by Maitra et al and published in Pediatric Anesthesia, included nine RCTs where i-gel® had been compared to the cLMA and/or the pLMA . The authors concluded that ‘The i-gel® airway is at least equally effective with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal and laryngeal mask airway Classic and provides a significantly higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than both the laryngeal masks.’ The authors of both meta-analyses acknowledge a number of limitations to their papers. An important consideration is certainly whether any statistically significant differences identified between devices are also clinically significant. i-gel

A particularly interesting article, published in 2013, is ‘Current practice of pediatric supraglottic airway devices – a survey of members of the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (APAGBI)’. It assessed usage of SADs in routine and difficult airways in the UK by distributing a survey with sixteen questions to all UK members of the APAGBI. Two hundred and fourty-four members replied.

88% ‘favoured’ first generation SADs for routine use and 85% ‘preferentially’ for use in the failed intubation scenario. As the pLMA, a second generation device, is often considered the premier SAD for use in children, this is perhaps a little surprising. In fact, only 1% of responders confirmed the pLMA as their first choice/usual SAD. 49% would never use a SAD on a patient weighing less than 5kg. Only 15% ‘felt that an esophageal drainage tube was an important feature.’

The authors confirm that, ‘Fibreoptic guided intubation via an SAD is used electively by 46% of respondents, and only 3% regularly employ this technique. 17% have used the technique in an emergency, 20% have only practiced it on a manikin, and 9% have never used or seen this technique in any situation.’

With regard to i-gel, 37% of respondents reported they had access to the device. This compared to 25% with access to the pLMA and 14% to the sLMA. However, only 1% confirmed i-gel® as their first choice/usual SAD. The same percentage as reported for the pLMA. 87% had access to a classically shaped laryngeal mask airway, with 77% using it as their first-choice/usual SAD. Only 15% considered an esophageal drain channel as an important design feature.

So why the low use and apparent limited interest in second generation SADs, such as i-gel® and the pLMA amongst members of the APAGBI? The authors suggest there may be a number of reasons for the slower adoption than with the adult sizes, such as paediatric sizes coming onto the market later than adult sizes, the bulkier design of paediatric sizes and because aspiration associated with SAD use is seen less frequently and has less morbidity in children when compared with adults. It maybe the potential safety features are therefore considered by paediatric anaesthetists to be less essential.

The authors conclude that, ‘Research currently has little influence over the choice of which SAD to use, which is more likely determined by personal choice and departmental preference.’

Whilst writing this review, two additional papers of interest were published in Anaesthesia. The first, ‘A performance comparison of the paediatric i-gel with other supraglottic airway devices’ by Smith & Bailey includes data from fourteen RCTs and eight observational studies. The authors conclude that, ‘the i-gel is at least equivalent to other supraglottic airway devices curently available for use in children, and may enable a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure and an improved fibreoptic view of the glottis.’

The other paper is a particularly interesting editorial, entitled, ‘Which supraglottic airway will serve my patient best?, also published in Anaesthesia. Whilst not specifically focussed on paediatric SADs, the paper mentions two of the meta-analyses discussed in this blog post.

The authors Kristensen, Teoh and Asai consider how the ‘right’ device should be chosen, when a new device can be introduced into clinical practice, the role of manikin studies and manufacturer’s responsibilities. They also discuss the ADEPT guidance formulated by the Difficult Airway Society (DAS).

The authors comment that, ‘Until significantly better features of a new airway device relating to clinically important outcome measures have been shown, we should be cautious about replacing the conventional device with a new one…We can judge whether or not a new device has a clinically meaningful difference (superiority) to the conventional device, mainly by assessing the results of randomised controlled studies and meta-analyses. Nevertheless, if randomised controlled studies only show statistically significant differences that are not clinically meaningful, the reports of meta-analyses will not provide clinically meaningful information for our decision making.’

So what conclusions can we draw from the new data published for i-gel? Is the device superior to other paediatric supraglottic airways already available? Well, the new data is varied in subject matter, includes a number of RCTs, comparative studies and meta-analyses. Most of the data is encouraging and some possible advantages have been identified. However, there are always areas where more data is required or desirable. I will leave you to review the evidence for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Note:
i-gel is a registered trademark of Intersurgical Ltd. LMA Classic, LMA ProSeal, LMA Unique and LMA Supreme are registered trade marks of the Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd. cLMA, pLMA, and sLMA are abbreviations used in some journal articles. They refer to the LMA Classic, LMA Proseal and LMA Supreme respectively. Ambu is a registered trademark of Ambu A/S.

REVIVE airway study – clinical outcomes and future plans

Since plans were first announced to conduct a randomised comparison of two second generation SADs to current practice in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in a UK ambulance service, the results have been eagerly anticipated. This can be no surprise given the paucity of high level evidence to confirm the best technique for maintaining an airway and providing ventilation in adults with cardiopulmonary arrest.

However, the primary objective of REVIVE was not to provide a definitive answer to the above question, but to assess the feasibility of the study design. If REVIVE proved the design was feasible, capable of establishing whether ventilation success can be achieved, and of measuring other key outcomes such as return of spontaneous ventilation and survival to hospital, then it would lay the foundation for a future full-scale study which might just provide us with the answer to the above question.

The REVIVE airway working group presented a poster at the International Conference on Emergency Medicine (ICEM) in Dublin in June last year entitled, ‘Early report of paramedic recruitment in the REVIVE-Airways study’. This confirmed the target of recruiting 150 randomised paramedics and stratification by experience and base station location had been successfully achieved.

Last month, in an abstract presented at the American Heart Association Resuscitation Science Symposium in Dallas, we had our first glimpse of the data related to the clinical outcomes. As this was a feasibility trial and not designed or powered to show clinically significant differences between each device or study arm, there was some discussion as to whether the clinical data should be released. However, the protocol published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), suggests the original intention had always been to disseminate the clincial data to participants in the study and to the wider public via an open access web-site, appropriate conferences and medical journals.

A more comprehensive overview of the study results was presented at the UWE Conference & Exhibition Centre in Bristol on the 29th November. Speakers included Dr Jerry Nolan, Dr Jas Soar, Prof Jonathan Benger, Dr Matt Thomas, Dr Janet Brandling, Dr Sarah Voss and Mr Dave Coates.

The results showed no significant differences in important clinical outcomes between the use of a supraglottic airway (SAD) and usual practice (principally tracheal intubation) during OHCA. However, the trial was insufficiently powered to detect small differences in mortality. The i-gel® was superior to the LMA Supreme® on several measures, including compliance, adverse events and staff feedback. The investigators are proceeding to a large-scale trial of i-gel® versus tracheal intubation in OHCA.

For the record, the survival to hospital discharge was as follows:

     • i-gel® 10.3%
     • LMA Supreme® 8.0%
     • Usual practice 9.1%

     (p=0.73)

Survival to 90 days is shown below:

     • i-gel® 9.5%
     • LMA Supreme® 6.9%
     • Usual practice 8.6%

     (p=0.65)

Data was also presented on neurocognitive and quality of life outcomes, as well as successful device placement. There was also interesting data regarding the number of arrests attended by each paramedic (March 2012 to February 2013), which ranged from 0-11, with a mean of 3.6 arrests per paramedic. 15 paramedics did not attend any arrest during the study period. There were presentations confirming how the airway was actually managed in practice and feedback from the paramedics that participated in the study.

Successful aspects of REVIVE included proof of the feasibility of a cluster randomised trial of airway intervention in OHCA and the collection of valuable data to inform a full trial. It also demonstrated the strong support of paramedics and informed statistical calculations for a larger study. So, what next?

REVIVE 2

Professor Jonathan Benger, in a presentation entitled, ‘Further research: REVIVE 2’, confirmed the aims of REVIVE 2 as identifying differences in the primary outcome of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at hospital discharge: good recovery (0-3) versus poor recovery/death (4-6) and differences in:

• mRS at 3 and 6 months following OHCA
• Quality of life at discharge, 3 months and 6 months
• Cognitive function at 3 and 6 months
• ROSC
• Length of stay
• Ventilation success, regurgitation and aspiration
• Loss of a previously established airway

Comparative cost effectiveness of the i-gel® and intubation, as well as the views and preferences of paramedics is also to be assessed.

It is intended the design will be a cluster randomised trial (by paramedic), with an airway algorithm for each arm. Clinical need will always take precedence and there will be an economic analysis, as well as patient and public involvement. An outline bid has been successful, and a full proposal is to follow (5th February 2014). It is intended for the trial to run for 45 months, from October 2014 to June 2018.

REVIVE 2 will need approximately 1,300 paramedics. This will probably require the inclusion of three or four large UK ambulance trusts. It is estimated the cost for REVIVE 2 will be £2 million. The investigators are ready to begin.

Four and a half years (probably 5 years before the results are reported) may seem a long time to wait for the conclusion of REVIVE 2, but given the lack of high level data currently available regarding the best airway device to use during the initial phase of OHCA, it will be worth the wait.

Use of SADs in the prehospital setting – a new review

Ostermayer and Gausche-Hill, in their review paper, ‘Supraglottic airways: The history and current state of prehospital airway adjuncts’, to be published in Prehospital Emergency Care, provide a much welcome overview on the use of supraglottic airways (SADs) in what can often be a difficult and challenging setting.

The paper begins by confirming that the widespread adoption of SADs in prehospital care ‘directly stems from their ease of use, simplicity of training, predictability, and speed of insertion’. It continues with a brief history of the use of SADs, particularly the Laryngeal Mask Airway, in the prehospital setting and includes individual overviews of a number of devices, including the Combitube®, King LT®, LMA Fastrach® and Intersurgical i-gel®.

There is acknowledgement that whilst SADs do not, in the words of the authors, provide ‘definitive airway management’, some of the newer devices do incorporate higher seal pressures than earlier options and the ability for gastric decompression, which ‘may significantly decrease aspiration risk’.

In anaesthesia circles in particular, a new classification of SADs into 1st and 2nd generation devices has gained considerable popularity and helped to highlight important differences between devices. In a review article by White et al, entitled, ‘A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices’, a 1st generation device was described as a ‘simple airway tube’ and 2nd generation as a device that ‘incorporates specific design features to improve safety by protecting against regurgitation and aspiration.’

Of course, as mentioned in an earlier blog post on the classification of supraglottic airways, designation as a 2nd generation device does not in itself confirm superiority of performance, but the classification does provide useful information about basic product design characteristics, such as whether the device incorporates a mechanism for the management of regurgitant fluid. These are important considerations when deciding the most appropriate SAD to use in the pre-hospital setting.

Discussion on the use of airway devices in the austere environment states that data collection from Combat Support Hospitals in 2008 demonstrated that 86.3% of prehospital managed airways were managed with an Endotracheal tube (ETT), 7.2% with an Esophageal Tracheal Combitube (ETC) and 0.7% with an LMA, and that, ‘although the ETC is the standard rescue airway device for the U.S. Army, poor skill retention has been demonstrated with the device among medics.’

RSA or Rapid Sequence Airway placement, the insertion of an alternative airway, such as a SAD, after pharmacological treatment with a paralytic and sedative is discussed. This is an important subject and Ostermayer and Gausche-Hill confirm that no trials have yet compared the risks and benefits of drug-assisted SAD placement to non-drug-assisted placement.

The final section of the review takes a look at airway management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA). Of particular interest is a reference to a Japanese study which looked at neurological outcomes in patients where an ETT was used, compared to either a SAD or Bag Valve Mask (BVM). The results are interesting, but it is important when reviewing such studies to consider the SADs that were used. Results are likely to be quite different for 2nd generation SADs such as the i-gel, compared to a 1st generation device such as a standard Laryngeal Mask Airway. In some countries like the UK, devices such as the Combitube® are now rarely, if ever used. This issue is discussed in more depth in my blog post, ‘Pre-hospital airway management for patients with OHCA’.

There are a couple of small errors in the ‘early view’ version of this paper. For example, in Table 1, the i-gel® is designated as reusable, whereas the device is in fact single use. No doubt these errors will be corrected in the final published version.

In summary, this review paper provides an interesting overview of the history and current state of prehospital airway adjuncts. The conclusion will reflect the thoughts of many with regard to this subject:

‘Since prehospital airway management devices largely evolve from the field of anesthesia, much of the medical literature regarding new devices focuses on the operating room. With the many obvious practical and clinical differences between these clinical settings, further studies in the prehospital environment are needed, specifically trials correlating neurologic outcome to supraglottic device’

Equally important will be to ensure that results for one type of SAD are not extrapolated to another with quite different design characteristics. Tempting as it may be to discuss SADs as if they are one homogenous group of devices, the reality, as this paper helps to highlight, is that the performance of each device can and will be quite different. One SAD is most definitely not the same as another. Further data regarding the use of SADs in the prehospital setting is eagerly awaited.

Use of SADs during neonatal resuscitation

In June this year, an interesting discussion article was published in Resuscitation by Schmölzer et al, entitled, ‘Supraglottic airway devices during neonatal resuscitation: An historical perspective, systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials’.

This is a welcome review. Whilst The World Health Organisation (WHO) report that neonatal mortality rates have declined from 32 per 1,000 births in 1990 to 22 per 1,000 births in 2011, a reduction of over 30%, the proportion of child deaths which occur in the neonatal period has increased in all WHO regions over the last 20 years. In an analysis of neonatal mortality – situation and trends, WHO state that prematurity is the leading cause of newborn deaths and that up to two thirds of newborn deaths could be prevented if skilled health care workers perform effective health measures at birth and during the first week of life.

The WHO Guidelines on Basic Newborn Resuscitation 2012 confirm that globally, approximately a quarter of neonatal deaths are caused by birth asphyxia, defining birth asphyxia as the failure to initiate and sustain breathing at birth. The guidelines go on to state that ‘effective resuscitation at birth can prevent a large proportion of these deaths’.

Schmölzer et al state that the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and various national guidelines all agree that, ‘mask ventilation is the cornerstone of respiratory support immediately after birth.’ However, delivery room studies have shown that mask ventilation is difficult and mask leak and airway obstruction are common. In light of this, it is interesting to consider, as Schmölzer et al have done, what role supraglottic airways might have in neonatal resuscitation and examine the current evidence base for their use.

Current neonatal guidelines, such as those issued by the American Heart Association (AHA), state that Laryngeal Mask Airways (LMs) have been shown to be effective for ventilating newborns weighing more than 2kg or delivered ≥ 34 weeks gestation, and that there are limited data on the use of these devices in small preterm infants <2kg or <34 weeks gestation. The AHA guidelines also confirm that, ‘A laryngeal mask should be considered if facemask ventilation is unsuccessful and tracheal intubation is unsuccessful or not feasible. The laryngeal mask has not been evaluated in cases of meconium-stained fluid, during chest compressions, or for administration of emergency intratracheal medications.’

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Trevisanuto et al reported that although 35% of Italian anaesthetists and 23% of paediatricians have experience with LMs for airway management in newborn infants, anaesthetists were more enthusiastic about the LM than paediatricians. Schmölzer et al confirmed that although there are various studies comparing LMs, randomised trials comparing the performance of each LM are warranted.

There is a meta-analysis of randomised trials (RCT) in the Schmölzer et al review, which concludes that, ‘Overall, RCTs have shown that initial respiratory support with a LM is feasible and safe. However, there is not enough evidence to recommend LM instead of mask ventilation for initial respiratory support in the delivery room and large randomised trials are warranted before the technique is widely applied.’

The review also discusses the potential of supraglottic airways as a conduit for the administration of surfactant. An important subject, particularly given that surfactant administration via an ET tube has been associated with a series of adverse events. The review notes that, ‘although pilot data are promising, the current available evidence suggests that surfactant administration via laryngeal mask should be limited to clinical trials.’

At the 54th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Research in Porto in October this year, three posters are being presented regarding the use of supraglottic airways in neonatal resuscitation. The first is entitled, ‘The relationship between successful insertion of a neonatal sized i-gel and a health care provider’s profession or experience’, by Sugiura et al from Shizuoka, in Japan. The second, from the same group of investigators, is entitled, ‘Randomised controlled study comparing a neonatal sized i-gel and the Laryngeal Mask Airway in a neonatal resuscitation mannequin.’ The third is entitled, ‘Higher success rate and operator satisfaction with i-gel laryngeal mask airway compared to face mask: A mannequin study of neonatal resuscitation in Uganda’, by Pejovic et al, from Stockholm in Sweden, Padua in Italy, Kampala in Uganda and Bergen in Norway.

It will not be possible to draw any conclusions from these posters, so the authors will no doubt conclude that further research is required. Of significance is the potential benefits of using supraglottic airways during neonatal resuscitation compared to a BVM or ET tube being discussed and studied, and the recognition that all supraglottic airways are not the same.

The latter point is important. Evidence for one supraglottic airway should not be extrapolated to another device with different design characteristics.

Further data regarding the potential use of supraglottic airways in neonatal resuscitation is awaited with great interest.