Flexible optical intubation via the Ambu Aura-i vs blind intubation via the single-use LMA Fastrach: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Study Objective: This study was designed to compare the Ambu Aura-i to the single-use LMA Fastrach regarding time to intubation, success rate, and airway morbidity in patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Sixty-five adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Interventions: Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n = 33) were intubated using Ambu Aura-i and the Ambu aScope 2, a disposable flexible intubating scope, whereas those in group B (n = 33) were blindly intubated using the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA). Measurements: First-attempt intubation success rate, overall intubation success rate, time to intubation, incidence of airway morbidity. Main results: The data demonstrated that time for endotracheal intubation in the ILMA group was significantly shorter than in the Ambu Aura-i group (P <.05). There was no difference in the first-attempt intubation success rate (Aura-i = 26/33, 78.8%; ILMA = 27/33, 81.8%; P =.757) or the overall intubation success rate (Aura-i = 29/33, 87.9%; ILMA = 31/33, 93.9%; P =.392) between the groups. Four patients (12%) in the Ambu Aura-i group had a failed intubation; 1 was due to a failure of the aScope monitor, whereas 3 were due to inability to visualize the glottis. Two patients (7%) in the ILMA group had a failed intubation due to esophageal intubation. There was no statistically significant difference in airway morbidity between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The data suggest that intubation with the ILMA is faster but that first-attempt and overall intubation success rates were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that although the flexible intubating scope guided Aura-i does not outperform blind intubation via the ILMA, the technique is comparable in terms of first-attempt and overall intubation success rate. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.