Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2015
The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D) is comparable to the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach) - a prospective randomised manikin study.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03542747 (Comparison of the Novel iLTS and Fastrach Intubation Laryngeal Mask for Time to Ventilation in a Simulated Airway.), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of the Novel iLTS and Fastrach Intubation Laryngeal Mask for Time to Ventilation in a Simulated Airway.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Trial
- Randomized controlled trials of simulation-based interventions in Emergency Medicine: a methodological review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Review
- [Intubating laryngeal tube suction disposable: Initial clinical experiences with a novel device for endotracheal intubation].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Article
- Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults.British journal of anaesthesia · 2015Article
- Airway management in maxillofacial trauma.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyReview
- Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of fiberoptic-guided success of intubation using intubating LMA and intubating laryngeal tube suction.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupraglottic devices are helpful for inexperienced providers who perform ventilation in emergency situations. Most supraglottic devices do not allow secondary tracheal intubation through the device. The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach) are devices that offer supraglottic ventilation and secondary tracheal intubation.
methodsWe evaluated the novel iLTS-D and compared it to the established Fastrach using a manikin-based study. Participants used both devices in a randomised order. The participants conducted four consecutive trials on a manikin. One trial was composed of the following procedures. First, participants ventilated the manikin using either iLTS-D or Fastrach. 'Time to ventilation', success rates and number of attempts were recorded for the supraglottic device. Second, participants intubated the manikin through the previously inserted supraglottic device. 'Time to tracheal ventilation', success rate and tube localisation were recorded. The primary endpoint was the results of the final fourth trial, which mirrored the standardised training of trials 1, 2 and 3.
resultsA total of 64 participants were enrolled. All of the participants successfully inserted both devices on their first attempt in trial 4. Fastrach was applied 1 s faster in trial 4 than the iLTS-D (median 'time to ventilation' Fastrach: 13.5 s., iLTS-D: 14.5 s., p = 0.04). All participants successfully intubated through both devices in trial 4. There was no difference in 'time to tracheal ventilation' by tracheal intubation between either device (median 'time to tracheal ventilation': Fastrach: 14.0 s., iLTS-D: 14.0 s., p = 0.16).
conclusionThe iLTS-D performed similarly to the ILMA in insertion and intubation times in a manikin setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.