| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
OUTCOMES RESEARCHTM Institute and the Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ozan Akça, MD, OUTCOMES RESEARCH Institute, 501 E. Broadway, Suite 210, Louisville, KY 40202. Address email to ozan.akca{at}louisville.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
2 tests, or Fisher’s exact tests; P < 0.05 was significant. Patient characteristics, insertion times, airway adequacy, number of repositioning attempts, and recovery were similar in each group. Airway sealing pressure was significantly greater with CobraPLA (23 ± 6 cm H2O) than LMA (18 ± 5 cm H2O, P < 0.001). The CobraPLA has insertion characteristics similar to the LMA but better airway sealing capabilities. IMPLICATIONS: The perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA) has insertion characteristics similar to those of the laryngeal mask airway but better airway sealing capabilities. This better sealing might improve the ability to provide mechanical ventilation.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
10 cm H2O higher airway sealing pressures than LMA. However, the ProSeal LMA is more difficult to insert (10). The perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA; Engineered Medical Systems, Indianapolis, IN) is a novel cuffed airway device. The airway is positioned in the hypopharynx where it abuts structures of the laryngeal inlet. The CobraPLA is a supraglottic airway in the same class as the LMA and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway. It consists of a breathing tube with a wide distal end and a cuff attached just proximal to the wide part. The cuff, when inflated, serves to seal off the distal end from the upper airway. The wide end holds both soft tissues and the epiglottis away from the distal portion of the CobraPLA. Once in place, it abuts directly against the glottis with the anterior wall holding the epiglottis out of the way. Inside the distal end, a continuation of the breathing tube angles upwards (Fig. 1). Anteroposterior width of the distal end is smaller than the LMA. Therefore, it requires a smaller mouth opening for insertion, and it might be easier to insert than the LMA.
|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Five of the investigators (3 attending physicians, 1 clinical fellow, and 1 certified registered nurse-anesthetist), all of whom had >6 yr clinical anesthesia and LMA-insertion experience, were selected to insert the airways; these investigators were trained with a minimum of 10 CobraPLA insertions before the study started. Three unblinded investigators collected intraoperative data, and 2 blinded investigators collected postoperative data.
Sample size was estimated from the data of a preliminary study that involved 40 patients. In the preliminary study, there was 
5 cm H2O mean difference (with a SD of approximately 7 cm H2O) in airway sealing pressures between the groups. With a P value of 0.05 considered as statistically significant, we estimated that with 80 patients, the study would have 90% power to detect a 5-cm difference in airway sealing pressure. The study was also powered to have 90% power to detect a difference of 20 s in the insertion time.
Patients were premedicated with fentanyl (1–2 µg/kg) and midazolam (1–2 mg). After application of routine anesthetic monitoring, general anesthesia was induced by bolus IV administration of propofol (2–3 mg/kg). Patients were randomly assigned to either a LMA or a CobraPLA. Randomization was based on computer-generated codes that were maintained in opaque envelopes. Each intubating investigator was given 20 sequentially numbered randomization envelopes. They then enrolled patients as opportunity presented. LMA size was chosen according to the weight ranges recommended for this device. In the CobraPLA group, a size #3 was used in most women and a #4 in most men (during patient enrollment, the #5 CobraPLA was not yet available). Both airways were prepared and kept available for each patient because the randomization envelopes were not opened until just before airway insertion. Airways were lubricated with a water-based lubricant.
The first attempt of airway insertion was made 30 s after propofol injection when the eyelash reflex had disappeared and the jaw relaxed. During this time, 4–5 manual ventilations of 5–6 mL/kg of tidal volume (VT) were provided. The investigator performing the insertion attempted to avoid insufflation of the patient’s stomach. No muscle relaxants were administered before airway insertion. An independent observer measured the time of insertion with a stopwatch. The time started when the tip of the airway was at the upper incisors and stopped when an adequate airway was established, as defined by obtaining a good end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) trace and a VT exceeding 5 mL/kg ideal body weight or no leak with positive pressure ventilation of 15 cm H2O. After two failed attempts at airway insertion, the alternative airway device was inserted if the patient could be ventilated and pulse-oximeter saturation was >95%; otherwise, an endotracheal tube was inserted to maintain the airway. The cuffs of both airway devices were inflated to 60 cm H2O. A low-pressure monitor (VBM, Sulz, Germany) was used to measure cuff pressure. This cuff pressure has been shown to provide safe mucosal tissue pressures (11,12).
Anesthesia was maintained with 60% nitrous oxide, fentanyl (100 µg/h), and sevoflurane (as needed to maintain mean arterial blood pressure within 20% of preinduction values). Immediately after insertion of the airway, airway-sealing pressure was determined as described below. Subsequently, patients in whom the estimated duration of anesthesia was less than 1 h were allowed to breathe spontaneously. Otherwise, rocuronium (0.5 mg/kg) was given and patients were mechanically ventilated with a VT of 8 mL/kg at a rate sufficient to maintain end-tidal PCO2 near 40 mm Hg.
Neuromuscular block was antagonized near the end of surgery. The amount of gastric insufflation was measured. Anesthesia was discontinued after completion of surgery, and the airway was subsequently removed. Immediately after the removal of airway, oropharyngeal structures were visualized with the help of a tongue depressor and flashlight, and any major damage was recorded.
Demographic and morphometric characteristics, airway classification, type of surgery, position of patient, airway device size, and duration of anesthesia were recorded. Patients’ oxygen saturation (SpO2) and ETCO2 were recorded. Hypoxia was defined as SpO2 
90%. Hypercapnia was defined as an ETCO2 >45 mm Hg.
Airways were classified with a modified Mallampati score by asking patients to maximally protrude their tongues from a fully open mouth while sitting upright (13,14). Thyromental distance was measured as described by Tse et al. (15). This distance is described as a straight line from the thyroid notch to the anterior part of the chin with the head fully extended.
Airway devices were evaluated in three general categories: insertion, maintenance, and recovery. The insertion category included time and ease of insertion, seating, and airway adequacy. The maintenance category included quality of sealing and ventilation. The recovery category included characteristics such as sore throat, dysphagia, and dysphonia.
Airway insertion time was recorded using a stopwatch. Recording started when the device was inserted into the patient’s mouth and stopped when an adequate airway (as described above) was obtained. The number of attempts required to correctly position the device (1, 2, or failure) was recorded along with the airway size used. Once the device was optimally positioned, its position was not altered unless clinically indicated. Insertion depth was measured by placing a mark at the level of the incisors after insertion. The effective length of the device was the distance from the tip to the mark. Repositioning was defined as the repeated positioning in the pharyngeal area to obtain better airway sealing without extubating the head portion of the airway. Laryngospasm, when noted by the attending anesthesiologist and confirmed by the blinded observer, was recorded.
After insertion of the appropriate device, airway sealing pressure was measured by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at a fixed gas flow of 3 L/min and noting the airway pressure at which the dial on the aneroid manometer reached equilibrium (16). Assessment of leak pressure was performed immediately after insertion of either device.
After insertion of the airway device and measurement of airway sealing pressure, patients were placed on mechanical ventilation (regardless of the duration of surgery) and ventilated with 8 mL/kg VT for 2 min. During this time, airway sealing quality was determined and rated as follows: 1) no leak detected; 2) minimal loss of VT (VT loss 20%); 3) moderate loss of VT (VT loss of 20%–40%); or 4) insufficient seal (VT loss >40%). VT loss was determined as inspiratory (set) VT – expiratory (outcome) VT, which was obtained from the monitor of Datex S/5TM anesthesia ventilator (Datex-Ohmeda, Madison, WI). Muscle relaxant was given only after measuring sealing quality in the relevant patients.
After LMA or CobraPLA insertion and cuff inflation, in a subgroup of 35 consecutive patients in the second half of the study, flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (BFP 30, outer diameter, 5.0 mm; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was performed through a self-sealing diaphragm under continuing ventilatory support. The airway position was scored from the mask aperture bars by using the system proposed by Brimacombe and Berry (17,18): 4 = only vocal cords visible; 3 = vocal cords plus posterior epiglottis visible; 2 = vocal cords plus anterior epiglottis visible; 1 = vocal cords not fiberoptically visible; 0 = failure to insert or to function.
Before airways were removed at the end of surgery, the cuff was deflated and an orogastric tube inserted (Salem Sump Tube with Anti-Reflux Valve 18F; Argyle®; Sherwood Medical, St. Louis, MO). The volume of gas that could be aspirated was recorded (19). Clinically important gastric insufflation was defined by a residual gas volume >50 mL. Aspiration was noted per assessment of the attending anesthesiologist. The subjective definition used was presence a cough and airway irritation after extubation of the airway.
Patients were asked to rate their throat soreness, dysphonia, and dysphagia 1 h postoperatively using 100-mm visual analog scales by blinded investigators. For evaluation of dysphagia, sips of water were given. A new, unmarked scale was used for each patient. Patients were also asked if they experienced any tingling, numbness, or other oropharyngeal sensations.
Our primary outcomes were airway sealing pressure (cm H2O) and insertion time (s). The secondary outcomes were number of insertion attempts and repositioning maneuvers, anatomical fit as determined by fiberoptic evaluation, gastric insufflation, and oropharyngeal irritation (throat soreness, dysphagia, and dysphonia).
Data were tested for normal distribution, and analyses were performed by 2 statistics and unpaired Student’s t-tests or nonparametric analogues of Student’s t-tests, as appropriate. Results were presented as mean ± SD or actual numbers; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for designated primary outcomes. In contrast, a P < 0.01 was required for secondary outcomes; the smaller value was used to compensate for multiple comparisons.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Airway-sealing pressures were greater in the CobraPLA group (23 ± 6 cm H2O; range, 8–36 cm H2O) than in the LMA group (18 ± 5 cm H2O; range, 8–32 cm H2O). However, insertion time, number of attempts, and clinically assessed airway sealing quality classification were similar in the groups (Table 2). Perfect airway sealing (score of 1: no leak detected) occurred in 21 of 40 in the CobraPLA and 13 of 41 in the LMA group (P = 0.095). When we included sealing scores of 1 and 2, the groups appeared to be even more closely matched (CobraPLA 28 of 40 versus LMA 26 of 41; P = 0.80).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We were surprised that insertion success rates were comparable for the devices although the investigators had years of experience with the LMA but had only inserted the CobraPLA approximately 10 times before starting the study. Facility with the LMA and insertion success continue to improve through hundreds of insertions (20).
Among our primary and secondary outcomes, there was only a single statistically significant difference: airway sealing pressures were 23 ± 6 cm H2O with the CobraPLA, which was approximately 5 cm H2O more than with the LMA. The observed difference is clinically important because airway pressures of 20 cm H2O are typically required in routine practice. Furthermore, the company that manufactures the LMA recommends a ventilatory pattern that keeps peak airway pressure <20 cm H2O (9). It is thus likely that mechanical ventilation will succeed better with the CobraPLA than the LMA in cases and surgeries that are more complicated even though no important difference was noted in the short elective cases we studied. It should be noted that there is a better sealing version of the LMA. This relatively new airway device is called the ProSeal LMA and provides 10 cm H2O better airway sealing pressures than the LMA (10). However, the ProSeal LMA may be harder to insert, because of its larger anteroposterior distal end width compared with the LMA.
Improved sealing presumably results because the CobraPLA has a large ellipsoid cuff located in the upper portion of the device that easily covers the proximal pharynx. Similarly, the laryngeal tube airway also has a large cuff that allows it to provide higher sealing pressures than the LMA (21). The combination of good anatomic seating and a cuff sufficiently large enough to cover peripharyngeal tissues increases the chance of providing a patent airway with adequate airway sealing.
Efficacy is only half the equation; any new drug or device also needs to be evaluated for safety. Gastric insufflation was a particular concern because the superiorly located larger cuff of CobraPLA that improves airway-sealing pressure might also facilitate gas flow into the stomach. However, the number of patients with clinically important insufflation was similar in each group and the amount of gas in the stomach was small and similar with each airway. We therefore conclude that under the conditions of our study, which included mechanical ventilation in half the patients, gastric insufflation is not problematic with either device. However, gastric insufflation was only measured once, at the end of surgery. We may have obtained values that were more accurate if we continuously monitored gastric insufflation throughout surgery, although this would have interfered with testing airway sealing.
Coughing and hiccups are other symptoms of irritation caused by supraglottic airways (22). Only one coughing episode with CobraPLA extubation and one hiccup episode during assisted ventilation in an LMA patient were observed in this study. The presence of blood on the devices was similar with each airway, but it was more prevalent than in most previous reports (23). The major reason, presumably, was insertion of the nasogastric tube (orally) at the end of each case to evaluate gastric insufflation traumatized the upper airway. Recovery characteristics were similar with each device, and neither seemed to be associated with sore throat, dysphonia, or dysphagia.
Proper anatomic positioning of airways is necessary for optimal function. Positioning, as determined fiberoptically, was similar with the LMA and CobraPLA, which is consistent with similar insertion success rates. Positioning also helps predict an airway’s ability to assist with fiberoptic intubation. LMA facilitates intubation; in fact, it is available in an intubating version. More importantly, LMA has a well-deserved spot in the American Society of Anesthesiology difficult-airway algorithm (5). The CobraPLA is also designed to facilitate fiberoptic intubation. A size 3 CobraPLA allows passage of a size 6.5 endotracheal tube, whereas a size 4 CobraPLA supports passage of a size 8 endotracheal tube. The CobraPLA thus has larger tubing than a conventional LMA and permits passage of larger endotracheal tubes. Although our fiberoptic position data suggest that intubation through a CobraPLA should be at least as easy as through a LMA, we did not evaluate intubation with either device.
Brimacombe et al. (11) showed complete blood vessel collapse and impairment of mucosal perfusion in 90% of patients at the mean mucosal pressure of 80 cm H2O, although reduction in blood vessel caliber was observed with a mucosal pressure as little as 34 cm H2O. The manufacturer of the LMA suggests that cuff pressures be kept <60 cm H2O (9). This recommendation is consistent with our preliminary experiments in which sealing was poor at lower pressures. We thus chose a cuff pressure of 60 cm H2O for our study.
A limitation of our study is that it was impossible to blind the investigators who inserted the airways. However, it is reasonable to assume that these five experienced clinicians did their best to secure the airway with each device. Interestingly, the only important difference between the devices that we identified was in airway sealing pressure—an objective measure that is not subject to investigator bias. Postoperative measures, such as sore throat, were evaluated by blinded investigators and were thus presumably free from bias. There is thus little reason to believe that failure to fully blind the study influenced our results.
In summary, the CobraPLA was found to be as efficient an airway device as the LMA. There were no differences in insertion time, insertion success, or postoperative outcomes. However, the CobraPLA sealed the airway at a significantly greater pressure: 23 ± 6 cm H2O versus 18 ± 5 cm H2O. Although the evaluation period of the sealing quality was done for a limited amount of time immediately after intubation, the CobraPLA might be a better choice than the LMA in patients likely to benefit from mechanical ventilation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We appreciate the assistance of Edwin Liem, MD, Rachel Sheppard, CRCA, Diane Delong, RN, William Smith, CRNA, Beth Adkins, CRNA, (Department of Anesthesiology, University of Louisville). We appreciate the editorial assistance of Nancy Alsip, PhD, and the statistical assistance of Gilbert Haugh, MS.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
"CobraPLA" is a trademark of the Engineered Medical Systems, and all references to CobraPLA are to this trademark. "LMA" is a trademark of The Laryngeal Mask Company, and all references therein to LMA are to this trademark.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Hooshangi and D. T. Wong Brief Review: The Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA(R)) and the Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPATM) supraglottic airways: [Article de synthese court : Les dispositifs supraglottiques Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA(R)) et Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPATM)] Can J Anesth, March 1, 2008; 55(3): 177 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. M. Galvin Is the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLATM) Appropriate for Use in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopy? Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2007; 105(2): 546 - 547. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Galvin, M. van Doorn, J. Blazquez, J. F. Ubben, F. J. Zijlstra, J. Klein, and S. J. C. Verbrugge A Randomized Prospective Study Comparing the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic During Controlled Ventilation for Gynecological Laparoscopy Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2007; 104(1): 102 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Gaitini, B. Yanovski, M. Somri, S. Vaida, T. Riad, and D. Alfery A Comparison Between the PLA CobraTM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM During Spontaneous Ventilation: A Randomized Prospective Study Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2006; 102(2): 631 - 636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Dimitriou, J. Brimacombe, I. Zogogiannis, V. Voukena, A. Malefaki, and G. S. Voyagis Success of the CobraTM after failure of the FastrachTM in the difficult airway Can J Anesth, November 1, 2005; 52(9): 992 - 992. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Szmuk, O. Ghelber, O. Akca, and T. Ezri CobraPLA as a conduit for flexible bronchoscopy in a child under general anaesthesia Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2005; 94(4): 548 - 549. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Agro, M. Carassiti, C. Magnani, and D. Alfery Airway control via the CobraPLATM during percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy in five patients: [Le controle des voies aeriennes par le CobraPLATM pendant la tracheotomie dilatatrice percutanee chez cinq patients] Can J Anesth, April 1, 2005; 52(4): 418 - 420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Agro, M. Carassiti, and C. Magnani Use of the CobraPLATM for Percutaneous Cricothyroidotomy and Tracheostomy Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2005; 100(3): 902 - 903. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Brimacombe, C. Keller, and T. Asai Who is at increased risk of aspiration? Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2005; 94(2): 251 - 252. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
