Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation

Luis A. Gaitini, Boris Yanovsky, Mostafa Somri, Riad Tome, Pedro Charco Mora, Michael Frass, Allan P. Reed, Sonia Vaida

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Objective: To evaluate the ease of use of two airway devices, the EasyTube (EzT) versus the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC). Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital. Subjects: 80 adult, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Interventions: Patients' tracheas were intubated with the EzT or the ETC in randomized fashion. Measurements: Difficulty of insertion, time to achieve an effective airway, insertion success rate, maneuvers to achieve an effective airway, oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, ventilatory parameters, success rate of gastric tube insertion, and frequency of adverse effects were compared. Main Results: Insertion was easier in the EzT than in ETC; insertion of the EzT was rated easy in 36 7cases and moderately difficult in 4 cases versus 26 and 14 cases, respectively, for the ETC (P = 0.014). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the EzT than the ETC: 19.4 ± 5.3 sec versus 30.6 ± 4.1 seconds, respectively (P < 0.001). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the EzT than the ETC (34.3 ± 5.95 vs 31.6 ± 2.42 cm H 2O; P = 0.011). Peak airway pressures for the EZT and the ETC were 22.2 ± 0.99 cm H 20 and 33.7 ± 1.82 cm H 2O, respectively (P < 0.001). Gastric tube insertion was successful with both devices; however, the EzT allowed insertion of gastric tubes of wider diameter. No severe perioperative adverse events were recorded for either device. Conclusion: The EzT has distinct advantages over the ETC in airway management, including shorter time to achieve an effective airway and easier insertion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)475-481
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Anesthesia
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011

Fingerprint

Artificial Respiration
General Anesthesia
Pressure
Equipment and Supplies
Stomach
Airway Management
Trachea
Randomized Controlled Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Gaitini, Luis A. ; Yanovsky, Boris ; Somri, Mostafa ; Tome, Riad ; Mora, Pedro Charco ; Frass, Michael ; Reed, Allan P. ; Vaida, Sonia. / Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation. In: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2011 ; Vol. 23, No. 6. pp. 475-481.
@article{5c9fd3e1e0ad454b9c25bba919372f96,
title = "Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation",
abstract = "Study Objective: To evaluate the ease of use of two airway devices, the EasyTube (EzT) versus the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC). Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital. Subjects: 80 adult, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Interventions: Patients' tracheas were intubated with the EzT or the ETC in randomized fashion. Measurements: Difficulty of insertion, time to achieve an effective airway, insertion success rate, maneuvers to achieve an effective airway, oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, ventilatory parameters, success rate of gastric tube insertion, and frequency of adverse effects were compared. Main Results: Insertion was easier in the EzT than in ETC; insertion of the EzT was rated easy in 36 7cases and moderately difficult in 4 cases versus 26 and 14 cases, respectively, for the ETC (P = 0.014). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the EzT than the ETC: 19.4 ± 5.3 sec versus 30.6 ± 4.1 seconds, respectively (P < 0.001). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the EzT than the ETC (34.3 ± 5.95 vs 31.6 ± 2.42 cm H 2O; P = 0.011). Peak airway pressures for the EZT and the ETC were 22.2 ± 0.99 cm H 20 and 33.7 ± 1.82 cm H 2O, respectively (P < 0.001). Gastric tube insertion was successful with both devices; however, the EzT allowed insertion of gastric tubes of wider diameter. No severe perioperative adverse events were recorded for either device. Conclusion: The EzT has distinct advantages over the ETC in airway management, including shorter time to achieve an effective airway and easier insertion.",
author = "Gaitini, {Luis A.} and Boris Yanovsky and Mostafa Somri and Riad Tome and Mora, {Pedro Charco} and Michael Frass and Reed, {Allan P.} and Sonia Vaida",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "475--481",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Anesthesia",
issn = "0952-8180",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation. / Gaitini, Luis A.; Yanovsky, Boris; Somri, Mostafa; Tome, Riad; Mora, Pedro Charco; Frass, Michael; Reed, Allan P.; Vaida, Sonia.

In: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Vol. 23, No. 6, 01.09.2011, p. 475-481.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation

AU - Gaitini, Luis A.

AU - Yanovsky, Boris

AU - Somri, Mostafa

AU - Tome, Riad

AU - Mora, Pedro Charco

AU - Frass, Michael

AU - Reed, Allan P.

AU - Vaida, Sonia

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - Study Objective: To evaluate the ease of use of two airway devices, the EasyTube (EzT) versus the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC). Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital. Subjects: 80 adult, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Interventions: Patients' tracheas were intubated with the EzT or the ETC in randomized fashion. Measurements: Difficulty of insertion, time to achieve an effective airway, insertion success rate, maneuvers to achieve an effective airway, oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, ventilatory parameters, success rate of gastric tube insertion, and frequency of adverse effects were compared. Main Results: Insertion was easier in the EzT than in ETC; insertion of the EzT was rated easy in 36 7cases and moderately difficult in 4 cases versus 26 and 14 cases, respectively, for the ETC (P = 0.014). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the EzT than the ETC: 19.4 ± 5.3 sec versus 30.6 ± 4.1 seconds, respectively (P < 0.001). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the EzT than the ETC (34.3 ± 5.95 vs 31.6 ± 2.42 cm H 2O; P = 0.011). Peak airway pressures for the EZT and the ETC were 22.2 ± 0.99 cm H 20 and 33.7 ± 1.82 cm H 2O, respectively (P < 0.001). Gastric tube insertion was successful with both devices; however, the EzT allowed insertion of gastric tubes of wider diameter. No severe perioperative adverse events were recorded for either device. Conclusion: The EzT has distinct advantages over the ETC in airway management, including shorter time to achieve an effective airway and easier insertion.

AB - Study Objective: To evaluate the ease of use of two airway devices, the EasyTube (EzT) versus the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC). Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital. Subjects: 80 adult, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Interventions: Patients' tracheas were intubated with the EzT or the ETC in randomized fashion. Measurements: Difficulty of insertion, time to achieve an effective airway, insertion success rate, maneuvers to achieve an effective airway, oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, ventilatory parameters, success rate of gastric tube insertion, and frequency of adverse effects were compared. Main Results: Insertion was easier in the EzT than in ETC; insertion of the EzT was rated easy in 36 7cases and moderately difficult in 4 cases versus 26 and 14 cases, respectively, for the ETC (P = 0.014). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the EzT than the ETC: 19.4 ± 5.3 sec versus 30.6 ± 4.1 seconds, respectively (P < 0.001). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the EzT than the ETC (34.3 ± 5.95 vs 31.6 ± 2.42 cm H 2O; P = 0.011). Peak airway pressures for the EZT and the ETC were 22.2 ± 0.99 cm H 20 and 33.7 ± 1.82 cm H 2O, respectively (P < 0.001). Gastric tube insertion was successful with both devices; however, the EzT allowed insertion of gastric tubes of wider diameter. No severe perioperative adverse events were recorded for either device. Conclusion: The EzT has distinct advantages over the ETC in airway management, including shorter time to achieve an effective airway and easier insertion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052762927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052762927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 21911194

AN - SCOPUS:80052762927

VL - 23

SP - 475

EP - 481

JO - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

JF - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

SN - 0952-8180

IS - 6

ER -