RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The i-gel® Plus is a modified version of the i-gel® supraglottic airway device. It contains a wider drainage port; a longer tip; ramps inside the breathing channel; and an additional port for oxygen delivery. There has been no prospective evaluation of this device in clinical practice. METHODS: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the performance of the i-gel Plus in adult patients undergoing elective procedures under general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was overall insertion success rate, defined as the ability to provide effective airway management through the device from insertion until the end of the surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes included device performance and incidence of postoperative adverse events. Data from the first 1000 patients are reported. RESULTS: In total, 1012 patients were enrolled; 12 forms were excluded from the final analysis due to incomplete data leaving 1000 included patients (545 female). Overall insertion success rate was 98.6%, with a first-attempt success rate of insertion of 88.2%. A significant difference between females and males was seen for the overall success rate (97.4% vs. 99.6% respectively) but not for first-attempt successful insertion. Mean (SD) oropharyngeal seal pressure was 32 (7) cmH2O. The only independent factor that increased the risk of first-attempt failure was low operator experience. Complications included desaturation < 85% in 0.6%; traces of blood on the device in 7.4%; laryngospasm in 0.5%; and gastric contents inside the bowl in 0.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The i-gel Plus appears to be an effective supraglottic airway device that is associated with a high insertion success rate and a reasonably low incidence of complications.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Randomized data evaluating the impact of the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) approach on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are lacking. The objective of this follow-up study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of the ECPR-based versus CCPR approach. METHODS: The Prague OHCA trial was a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin, without return of spontaneous circulation, were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene to conventional CPR (CCPR) or an ECPR-based approach (intra-arrest transport, ECPR if ROSC is not achieved prehospital and immediate invasive assessment). RESULTS: From March 2013 to October 2020, 264 patients were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene, and 256 patients were enrolled. Long-term follow-up was performed 5.3 (interquartile range 3.8-7.2) years after initial randomization and was completed in 255 of 256 patients (99.6%). In total, 34/123 (27.6%) patients in the ECPR-based group and 26/132 (19.7%) in the CCPR group were alive (log-rank P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the neurological outcome, survival after hospital discharge, risk of hospitalization, major cardiovascular events and quality of life. Of long-term survivors, 1/34 (2.9%) in the ECPR-based arm and 1/26 (3.8%) in the CCPR arm had poor neurological outcome (both patients had a cerebral performance category score of 3). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory OHCA, the ECPR-based approach significantly improved long-term survival. There were no differences in the neurological outcome, major cardiovascular events and quality of life between the groups, but the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference in these outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012.