Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-gel and Fastrach Laryngeal Mask Airway as an Intubating Device in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Maria Luisa Machado Assis,Fabricio Batistella Zasso,Matheus Pedrotti Chavez,Eduardo Cirne Toledo,Gabriel Motta,Leonardo Duarte Moraes,Eric Pasqualotto,Rafael Oliva Morgado Ferreira,Naveed Siddiqui,Kong Eric You-Ten
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007000
2024-09-11
Abstract:Background: The supraglottic airway device (SGD) was introduced as a breakthrough in airway management. The Fastrach emerged as the first commercially available intubating SGD, drawing extensive investigation. I-gel is a more recent device that has gained popularity, can be used as an intubating SGD, and replaced Fastrach in many institutions. However, there is uncertainty regarding the comparison between these devices in terms of efficacy for intubation and ventilation, and safety in an airway rescue situation. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-gel and Fastrach SGD in adult patients undergoing intubation. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, SGD insertion time and success, and complications. We computed risk ratios (RRs) to assess binary end points and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome and its subgroup analysis (P < .05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes (P < .01 was considered statistically significant). Results: This study included a total of 14 RCTs encompassing 1340 patients. The results indicated a significant difference in the first-pass success rate favoring Fastrach (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P = .03; I² = 91%). In the subgroup analysis, when a flexible scope was utilized through I-gel, providers achieved a better tracheal intubation first-pass success rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03; I² = 0%), compared with the Fastrach. Overall intubation success rates (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.82-1.04; P = .08, I² = 92%) and time (WMD - 1.03 seconds; 99% CI, -4.75 to 2.69; P = .48; I² = 84%) showed no significant difference irrespective of the device used. There was no significant difference regarding device insertion time by the providers (WMD -6.48 seconds; 99% CI, -13.23 to 0.27; P = .01; I2 = 98%). Success rates of the providers' initial SGD insertion and complications such as sore throat (RR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.65-1.57; P = .95, I² = 33%) and blood presence post-SGD removal (RR, 0.89; 99% CI, 0.42-1.86; P = .68, I² = 0%) showed no significant difference. Conclusions: Based on our findings, a higher first-pass success rate was observed with the use of Fastrach when compared to I-gel. However, the use of I-gel might result in a better intubation success rate with the flexible scope-guided intubation. There are no significant differences in performance in terms of the success rate for intubation overall, time for device insertion, or time to intubation or complications regardless of the device used.