Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT04664595 |
Other study ID # |
55-213-08-1-2 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
June 2012 |
Est. completion date |
December 2013 |
Study information
Verified date |
August 2021 |
Source |
Prince of Songkla University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
to evaluate and compare the effect-site concentration of propofol with the TCI system for
second-generation SGA device insertion between the I-gel™, Supreme™, ProSeal™ and Laryngeal
Tube Suction II™.
to determine the hemodynamic changes during insertion of supraglottic devices in patients
undergoing elective surgery and any complications after device insertion.
Description:
The investigators enrolled ASA physical status I-III patients who were 18-70 years old and
scheduled for general anesthesia for elective non-cardiac surgery with SGA devices.Adults
with a potentially difficult airway (cervical spine disease, Mallampati classification IV, or
a mouth opening less than 2.5 cm.), reactive airway disease, signs of respiratory infection
or a plan to remain intubated were excluded from the study. The investigators also excluded
patients who had a risk of gastric aspiration or morbid obesity (body mass index > 35 kg/m2).
Patients were randomized into 4 groups (I-gel™, Supreme™, ProSeal™ and Laryngeal Tube Suction
II™ SGAs) according to a computer generated randomization list and patients were allocated
consecutively. The sample size of each group required 10 patients.
All patients were pre-oxygenated with 100% oxygen. After the administration of 2 µg/ml
intravenous fentanyl for 5 minutes, anesthesia was induced with the Schnider pharmacokinetic
TCI system. After equilibration of the plasma-site and effect-site concentrations in propofol
TCI, 1 of the 4 types of SGA was randomly inserted by two anesthesiologists (resident trainee
and staff doctor) who were unaware of the actual plasma concentration of propofol without the
use of a muscle relaxant.
The response of each patient determined the effect-site concentration of propofol of the next
patient. "No Response" was defined as Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Score = 0 and
"Response" was defined as Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Score ≥ 1. If the insertion of the
supraglottic airway device was successful ("No Response"), then the target effect-site
concentration was decreased by a step of 0.4 µg/ml. If the insertion failed ("Response"), the
target effect-site concentration was increased by the same dose. The patients' responses to
LMA insertion was classified by blinded investigators.