A randomized comparison of volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation in children with the i-gel: Effects on peak inspiratory pressure, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and gastric insufflation

Jin Ha Park, Ji Young Kim, Kyoungun Park, Hae Keum Kil, Jin Ha Park, Ji Young Kim, Kyoungun Park, Hae Keum Kil

Abstract

Background: The i-gel provides good airway sealing but gastric insufflation may occur when peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) exceeds the sealing pressure of the i-gel without a gastric tube. Pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) provides lower PIP compared with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and low PIP may reduce the incidence of gastric insufflation in children during positive pressure ventilation. This study was designed to evaluate PIP, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and gastric insufflation during VCV or PCV in children undergoing general anesthesia with i-gel without a gastric tube in situ.

Methods: A prospective, randomized-controlled study was conducted. Thirty-four children, aged 6 to 84 months, were randomly allocated into the VCV or PCV group. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed to confirm appropriate position of i-gel. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and PIP were measured after i-gel insertion, after caudal block, and after surgery. Ultrasonography was performed to detect gastric insufflation. Gastric tube was not inserted.

Results: PIP in cm H2O was significantly lower in the PCV group than in the VCV group after i-gel insertion (10 [9-12] vs 12 [11-15], P = .021), after caudal block (11 [10-12] vs 13 [11-15], P = .014), and after surgery (10 [10-12] vs 13 [11-14], P = .002). There was no difference in the incidence of gastric insufflation between the 2 groups (4/17 in the VCV group and 3/17 in the PCV group) (P > .999).

Conclusion: When i-gel was used without a gastric tube, gastric insufflation occurred regardless of the ventilation modes, which provided different PIP.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Ultrasound images of gastric antrum after gastric insufflation showing acoustic shadows with comet-tail artifacts (asterisk). (B) Ultrasound images of the gastric antrum. On ultrasonography images, gastric antral area (GAA) was calculated from 2 orthogonal diameters of the antrum (D1 and D2). SMA = superior mesenteric artery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Consort flow diagram. PCV = pressure-controlled ventilation, VCV = volume-controlled ventilation.

References

    1. Efrat R, Kadari A, Katz S. The laryngeal mask airway in pediatric anesthesia: experience with 120 patients undergoing elective groin surgery. J Pediatr Surg 1994;29:206–8.
    1. Keidan I, Fine GF, Kagawa T, et al. Work of breathing during spontaneous ventilation in anesthetized children: a comparative study among the face mask, laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube. Anesth Analg 2000;91:1381–8.
    1. Hoshi K, Ejima Y, Hasegawa R, et al. Differences in respiratory parameters during continuous positive airway pressure and pressure support ventilation in infants and children. Tohoku J Exp Med 2001;194:45–54.
    1. Wahlen BM, Heinrichs W, Latorre F. Gastric insufflation pressure, air leakage and respiratory mechanics in the use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2004;14:313–7.
    1. Bordes M, Semjen F, Degryse C, et al. Pressure-controlled ventilation is superior to volume-controlled ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007;51:82–5.
    1. Weiler N, Latorre F, Eberle B, et al. Respiratory mechanics, gastric insufflation pressure, and air leakage of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 1997;84:1025–8.
    1. Latorre F, Eberle B, Weiler N, et al. Laryngeal mask airway position and the risk of gastric insufflation. Anesth Analg 1998;86:867–71.
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Garcia G. A randomized non-crossover study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized children. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:827–30.
    1. Sinha A, Sharma B, Sood J. Pressure vs. volume control ventilation: effects on gastric insufflation with size-1 LMA. Paediatr Anaesth 2010;20:1111–7.
    1. Keidan I, Berkenstadt H, Segal E, et al. Pressure versus volume-controlled ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2001;11:691–4.
    1. Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, et al. Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: a meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth 2014;24:1072–9.
    1. Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, et al. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:376–9.
    1. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, et al. A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2015;25:405–12.
    1. Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, et al. A randomised comparison of the i-gel and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in infants. Anaesthesia 2014;69:362–7.
    1. Ghai B, Ram J, Makkar JK, et al. Fiber-optic assessment of LMA position in children: a randomized crossover comparison of two techniques. Paediatr Anaesth 2011;21:1142–7.
    1. Cubillos J, Tse C, Chan VW, et al. Bedside ultrasound assessment of gastric content: an observational study. Can J Anaesth 2012;59:416–23.
    1. Schmitz A, Thomas S, Melanie F, et al. Ultrasonographic gastric antral area and gastric contents volume in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012;22:144–9.
    1. Bouvet L, Albert ML, Augris C, et al. Real-time detection of gastric insufflation related to facemask pressure-controlled ventilation using ultrasonography of the antrum and epigastric auscultation in nonparalyzed patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Anesthesiology 2014;120:326–34.
    1. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B, et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology 2011;115:102–10.
    1. Kim H, Lee JY, Lee SY, et al. A comparison of i-gel and LMA Supreme in anesthetized and paralyzed children. Korean J Anesthesiol 2014;67:317–22.
    1. Feldman MK, Katyal S, Blackwood MS. US artifacts. Radiographics 2009;29:1179–89.
    1. Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, et al. A randomised trial comparing the i-gel™ with the LMA Classic™ in children. Anaesthesia 2012;67:606–11.
    1. Brun PM, Chenaitia H, Lablanche C, et al. 2-point ultrasonography to confirm correct position of the gastric tube in prehospital setting. Mil Med 2014;179:959–63.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, et al. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i-gel and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2013;23:127–33.
    1. Lagarde S, Semjen F, Nouette-Gaulain K, et al. Facemask pressure-controlled ventilation in children: what is the pressure limit? Anesth Analg 2010;110:1676–9.
    1. Spitz L, McLeod E. Gastroesophageal reflux. Semin Pediatr Surg 2003;12:237–40.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa