Endotracheal intubation versus laryngeal mask airway for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

Michael A. Acquaviva, Nicole D. Horn, Sandeep Gupta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The present study examined the safety and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), compared with an endotracheal tube (ETT), for children undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A total of 84 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) patients, status I to III, were randomly assigned to receive an ETT or LMA. All participants were premedicated with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (up to 15 mg). Airway device placement occurred after induction with 8% sevoflurane and 100% oxygen, placement of an intravenous catheter, and intravenous lidocaine 2 mg/kg up to 100 mg. The following data were collected: time from induction of anesthesia to placement of the airway device, time from end of procedure to arrival in the postoperative acute care unit (PACU), time in the PACU, time from arrival in the operating room (OR) to discharge, vomiting after the procedure, nausea requiring medicine, lowest oxygen saturation, highest concentration of sevoflurane, highest pain, amount of pain medicine, adverse events, and satisfaction of doctor performing the EGD. Results: Group ETT had higher time from room arrival to airway placement, mask to airway placement, room arrival time to discharge, mask placement to discharge, airway placement to discharge, and end of procedure to discharge. Group ETT had a higher proportion of patients with vomiting than group LMA. No statistical difference was noted in endoscopist satisfaction when comparing ETT and LMA. The ETT group had 3 adverse events, including laryngospasm (n=2) and asthma attack (n=1). Conclusions: The LMA appears to be an acceptable and safe alternative for otherwise healthy children undergoing routine EGD. Benefits appear to be decreased incidence of vomiting and overall decreased time spent in the hospital.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)54-56
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
Volume59
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2014

Fingerprint

Digestive System Endoscopy
Laryngeal Masks
Intratracheal Intubation
Vomiting
Postoperative Care
Masks
Medicine
Laryngismus
Oxygen
Pain
Equipment and Supplies
Midazolam
Operating Rooms
Lidocaine
Nausea
Asthma
Catheters
Anesthesia
Safety
Incidence

Keywords

  • Children
  • Endotracheal tube
  • Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
  • Laryngeal mask airway

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Endotracheal intubation versus laryngeal mask airway for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children. / Acquaviva, Michael A.; Horn, Nicole D.; Gupta, Sandeep.

In: Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Vol. 59, No. 1, 01.07.2014, p. 54-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e5566533f1c14922bdd180600aaf13a3,
title = "Endotracheal intubation versus laryngeal mask airway for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children",
abstract = "Objectives: The present study examined the safety and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), compared with an endotracheal tube (ETT), for children undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A total of 84 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) patients, status I to III, were randomly assigned to receive an ETT or LMA. All participants were premedicated with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (up to 15 mg). Airway device placement occurred after induction with 8{\%} sevoflurane and 100{\%} oxygen, placement of an intravenous catheter, and intravenous lidocaine 2 mg/kg up to 100 mg. The following data were collected: time from induction of anesthesia to placement of the airway device, time from end of procedure to arrival in the postoperative acute care unit (PACU), time in the PACU, time from arrival in the operating room (OR) to discharge, vomiting after the procedure, nausea requiring medicine, lowest oxygen saturation, highest concentration of sevoflurane, highest pain, amount of pain medicine, adverse events, and satisfaction of doctor performing the EGD. Results: Group ETT had higher time from room arrival to airway placement, mask to airway placement, room arrival time to discharge, mask placement to discharge, airway placement to discharge, and end of procedure to discharge. Group ETT had a higher proportion of patients with vomiting than group LMA. No statistical difference was noted in endoscopist satisfaction when comparing ETT and LMA. The ETT group had 3 adverse events, including laryngospasm (n=2) and asthma attack (n=1). Conclusions: The LMA appears to be an acceptable and safe alternative for otherwise healthy children undergoing routine EGD. Benefits appear to be decreased incidence of vomiting and overall decreased time spent in the hospital.",
keywords = "Children, Endotracheal tube, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, Laryngeal mask airway",
author = "Acquaviva, {Michael A.} and Horn, {Nicole D.} and Sandeep Gupta",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MPG.0000000000000348",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "54--56",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition",
issn = "0277-2116",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endotracheal intubation versus laryngeal mask airway for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

AU - Acquaviva, Michael A.

AU - Horn, Nicole D.

AU - Gupta, Sandeep

PY - 2014/7/1

Y1 - 2014/7/1

N2 - Objectives: The present study examined the safety and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), compared with an endotracheal tube (ETT), for children undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A total of 84 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) patients, status I to III, were randomly assigned to receive an ETT or LMA. All participants were premedicated with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (up to 15 mg). Airway device placement occurred after induction with 8% sevoflurane and 100% oxygen, placement of an intravenous catheter, and intravenous lidocaine 2 mg/kg up to 100 mg. The following data were collected: time from induction of anesthesia to placement of the airway device, time from end of procedure to arrival in the postoperative acute care unit (PACU), time in the PACU, time from arrival in the operating room (OR) to discharge, vomiting after the procedure, nausea requiring medicine, lowest oxygen saturation, highest concentration of sevoflurane, highest pain, amount of pain medicine, adverse events, and satisfaction of doctor performing the EGD. Results: Group ETT had higher time from room arrival to airway placement, mask to airway placement, room arrival time to discharge, mask placement to discharge, airway placement to discharge, and end of procedure to discharge. Group ETT had a higher proportion of patients with vomiting than group LMA. No statistical difference was noted in endoscopist satisfaction when comparing ETT and LMA. The ETT group had 3 adverse events, including laryngospasm (n=2) and asthma attack (n=1). Conclusions: The LMA appears to be an acceptable and safe alternative for otherwise healthy children undergoing routine EGD. Benefits appear to be decreased incidence of vomiting and overall decreased time spent in the hospital.

AB - Objectives: The present study examined the safety and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), compared with an endotracheal tube (ETT), for children undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods: A total of 84 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) patients, status I to III, were randomly assigned to receive an ETT or LMA. All participants were premedicated with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (up to 15 mg). Airway device placement occurred after induction with 8% sevoflurane and 100% oxygen, placement of an intravenous catheter, and intravenous lidocaine 2 mg/kg up to 100 mg. The following data were collected: time from induction of anesthesia to placement of the airway device, time from end of procedure to arrival in the postoperative acute care unit (PACU), time in the PACU, time from arrival in the operating room (OR) to discharge, vomiting after the procedure, nausea requiring medicine, lowest oxygen saturation, highest concentration of sevoflurane, highest pain, amount of pain medicine, adverse events, and satisfaction of doctor performing the EGD. Results: Group ETT had higher time from room arrival to airway placement, mask to airway placement, room arrival time to discharge, mask placement to discharge, airway placement to discharge, and end of procedure to discharge. Group ETT had a higher proportion of patients with vomiting than group LMA. No statistical difference was noted in endoscopist satisfaction when comparing ETT and LMA. The ETT group had 3 adverse events, including laryngospasm (n=2) and asthma attack (n=1). Conclusions: The LMA appears to be an acceptable and safe alternative for otherwise healthy children undergoing routine EGD. Benefits appear to be decreased incidence of vomiting and overall decreased time spent in the hospital.

KW - Children

KW - Endotracheal tube

KW - Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

KW - Laryngeal mask airway

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925848761&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925848761&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000348

DO - 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000348

M3 - Article

C2 - 24637966

AN - SCOPUS:84925848761

VL - 59

SP - 54

EP - 56

JO - Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

JF - Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

SN - 0277-2116

IS - 1

ER -