Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway insertion requires a lower concentration of sevoflurane than ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled remifentanil infusion: a prospective randomised controlled study

Cristina Monteserín-Matesanz, Tatiana González, María José Anadón-Baselga, Matilde Zaballos, Cristina Monteserín-Matesanz, Tatiana González, María José Anadón-Baselga, Matilde Zaballos

Abstract

Background: ProSeal (PLMA) and Supreme (SLMA) laryngeal mask airways are effective ventilator devices with distinctive designs that may require different anaesthetics for insertion. Sevoflurane induction provides acceptable conditions for laryngeal mask insertion, and remifentanil significantly decreases the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for that insertion. The study aimed to evaluate the optimal end-tidal (ET) sevoflurane concentration for successful insertion of PLMA versus SLMA in patients receiving a remifentanil infusion without a neuromuscular blocking agent.

Methods: Altogether, 45 patients ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status I-II, aged 18-60 years were scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery. Exclusion criteria were a difficult airway, recent respiratory infection, reactive airway, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, gastric aspiration's risk factors, pregnancy, and lactation. Patients were randomly allocated to receive the SLMA or the PLMA. Sevoflurane induction with co-administration of remifentanil was performed at an effect-site concentration of 4 ng mL- 1. ET50 was calculated with a modified Dixon's up-and-down method (starting at 2.5% in steps of 0.5%). Predetermined sevoflurane concentration was kept constant during the 10 min before LMA insertion. Patient's response to LMA insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". Sevoflurane ET50 was determined as the midpoint concentration of all the independent pairs that manifested crossover from "movement" to "no movement".

Results: The ET50 sevoflurane concentration co-administered with remifentanil required for PLMA insertion was 1.20 ± 0.41% (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.63%). For SLMA insertion, it was 0.55 ± 0.38% (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.95%) (p = 0.019).

Conclusions: The end-tidal sevoflurane concentration with co-administered remifentanil required to allow insertion of the SLMA was 54% lower than that needed for inserting the PLMA.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03003377. Retrospectively registered. Date of registration: December 28, 2016.

Keywords: End-tidal sevoflurane concentration; Laryngeal mask airway Proseal; Laryngeal mask airway supreme; Remifentanil effect-site concentration; Supraglottic airway devices.

Conflict of interest statement

MZ reports research funding and speaker fees from ABBVIE and Teleflex outside the submitted work. CMM, TG, and MJAB declare no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow-diagram of patient progress through the phases of the trial. Patients were recruited until a sample size of seven crossovers was reached in each group
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patients’ responses to Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSeal™ insertion. Arrows indicate the midpoint of the effect-site concentration of all independent pairs of patients involving crossover from device insertion failure to successful Laryngeal Mask Airway Airway ProSeal™ insertion
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Patients’ responses to Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ insertion in Arrows indicate the midpoint of the effect-site concentration of all independent pairs of patients involving crossover from device insertion failure to successful Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ insertion
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Dose-response curves plotted from logistic analysis of individual end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations and the respective reactions to PLMA or SLMA insertion. ET50 in PLMA group: 1.15%; ET50 in SLMA group: 0.43%; ET95 in PLMA group: 2.43%; ET95 in SLMA group: 1.50%

References

    1. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The proseal™laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–760. doi: 10.1007/BF03016565.
    1. Cook TM, Gatward JJ, Handel J, et al. Evaluation of the LMA supreme™ in 100 non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:555–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05824.x.
    1. Kodaka M, Okamoto Y, Koyama K, et al. Predicted values of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask classic and ProSeal. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:242–245. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeh032.
    1. Zaballos M, Bastida E, Jiménez C, et al. Predicted end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for insertion of a laryngeal mask supreme. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30:170–174. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835c5512.
    1. Ganatra SB. D’Mello J, Butani M et al. conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway: comparisons between sevoflurane and propofol using fentanyl as a co-induction agent. A pilot study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19:371–375. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200205000-00010.
    1. Sivalingam P, Kandasamy R, Madhavan G, et al. Conditions for laryngeal mask insertion. A comparison of propofol versus sevoflurane with or without alfentanil. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:271–276. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00663.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1097/01.EJA.0000435015.89651.3d.
    1. Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–265.
    1. Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, et al. The laryngeal mask airway supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:79–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05682.x.
    1. Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:602–607. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833679e3.
    1. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Shafer SL. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. II Model application. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:24–33. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199701000-00005.
    1. Dixon WJ. Staircase bioassay: the up-and-down method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1991;15:47–50. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(05)80090-9.
    1. Muzi M, Robinson BJ, Ebert TJ, et al. Induction of anesthesia and tracheal intubation with sevoflurane in adults. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:536–543. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199609000-00012.
    1. de Jong RH, Eger EI. MAC expanded: AD50 and AD95 values of common inhalation anesthetics in man. Anesthesiology. 1975;42:384–389. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197504000-00003.
    1. Paul M, Fisher DM. Are estimates of MAC reliable? Anesthesiology. 2001;95:1362–1370. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200112000-00014.
    1. Cros AM, Lopez C, Kandel T, et al. Determination of sevoflurane alveolar concentration for tracheal intubation with remifentanil, and no muscle relaxant. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:965–969. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01538.x.
    1. Kwak HJ, Chae YJ, Lee KC, et al. Target-controlled infusion of remifentanil for laryngeal mask airway insertion during sevoflurane induction in adults. J Int Med Res. 2012;40:1476–1482. doi: 10.1177/147323001204000426.
    1. Ghai B, Jain K, Bansal D, et al. End-tidal sevoflurane concentration for ProSeal™ versus classic™ laryngeal mask airway insertion in unpremedicated anaesthetized adult females. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2016;44:221–226. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1604400208.
    1. Manyam SC, Gupta DK, Johnson KB, et al. When is a bispectral index of 60 too low?: rational processed electroencephalographic targets are dependent on the sedative-opioid ratio. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:472–483. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200703000-00011.
    1. Pace NL, Stylianou MP. Advances in and limitations of up-and-down methodology: a précis of clinical use, study design, and dose estimation in anesthesia research. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:144–152. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000267514.42592.2a.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren