Comparison Of The I-Gel Supraglottic And King Laryngotracheal Airways In A Simulated Tactical Environment

When working in a tactical environment there are several different airway management options that exist. One published manuscript suggests that when compared to endotracheal intubation, the King LT laryngotracheal airway (KA) device minimizes time to successful tube placement and minimizes exposure in a tactical environment. However, comparison of two different blind insertion supraglottic airway devices in a tactical environment has not been performed. This study compared the I-Gel airway (IGA) to the KA in a simulated tactical environment, to determine if one device is superior in minimizing exposure and minimizing time to successful tube placement.

This prospective randomized cross over trial was performed using the same methods and tactical environment employed in a previously published study, which compared endotracheal intubation versus the KA in a tactical environment. The tactical environment was simulated with a one-foot vertical barrier. The participants were paramedic students who wore an Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) and a ballistic vest (IIIA) during the study. Participants were then randomized to perform tactical airway management on an airway manikin with either the KA or the IGA, and then again using the alternate device. The participants performed a low military type crawl and remained in this low position during each tube placement. We evaluated the time to successful tube placement between the IGA and KA. During attempts, participants were videotaped to monitor their height exposure above the barrier. Following completion, participants were asked which airway device they preferred. Data was analyzed using Student's t-test across the groups for time to ventilation and height of exposure.

In total 19 paramedic students who were already at the basic EMT level participated. Time to successful placement for the KA was 39.7 seconds (95%CI: 32.7-46.7) versus 14.4 seconds (95%CI: 12.0-16.9) for the IGA, p < 0.001. Maximum height exposure of the helmet above a one foot vertical barrier for the KA resulted in 1.42 inches of exposure (95%CI: 0.38-0.63) compared to the IGA with 1.42 inches, 95%CI:0.32-0.74, p = 0.99. On questioning 100% of the participants preferred the IGA device over the KA.

In a simulated tactical environment placement of the IGA for airway management was faster than with the KA, but there was no difference in regard to exposure. Additionally, all the participants preferred using the IGA device over the KA.