CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Résumé de cet Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dimitriou, V.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dimitriou, V.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 50:495-500 (2003)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2003

Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Respiration and Airway

The PAxpressTM is an effective ventilatory device but has an 18% failure rate for flexible lightwand-guided tracheal intubation in anesthetized paralyzed patients

[Le PAxpressTM est un appareil de ventilation efficace, mais présente un taux d’échec de 18 % pour l’intubation trachéale sous guidage lumineux flexible chez les patients anesthésiés paralysés]

Vasilios Dimitriou, MD DEAA*, Gregory S. Voyagis, MD{dagger}, Christos Iatrou, MD* and Joseph Brimacombe, MB CHB FRCA MD{ddagger}

* From the Departments of Anaesthesia, University of Thrace, Greece;
{dagger} the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Sotiria Hospital, Greece, Athens; and
{ddagger} the University of Queensland and James Cook University, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns, Australia.

Address correspondence to: Prof. J. Brimacombe, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia. Fax: 61 7 40311628; E-mail: jbrimaco{at}bigpond.net.au

Purpose: The PAxpressTM is a new, single-use, extraglottic airway device. We evaluate: 1) insertion success rates; 2) airway sealing pressure, ventilatory capability and calculated mucosal pressures (in vitro minus in vivo intracuff pressure) at 30–60 mL cuff inflation volume; 3) the feasibility of lightwand-guided tracheal intubation; and 4) the incidence of mucosal trauma.

Methods: Ninety anesthetized, paralyzed adults were studied. Airway management was by senior anesthesiologists with no prior experience with the PAX, but considerable experience with extraglottic airway devices and the flexible-lightwand.

Results: Insertion was successful at the first attempt in 95.5% (86/90) and at the second attempt in 4.5% (4/90). Mean ± SD airway sealing pressure at 30, 40, 50 and 60 mL cuff inflation volume was 27 ± 8, 29 ± 9, 32 ± 9 and 35 ± 7 cm H2O respectively; expired tidal volume at airway sealing pressure was 16 ± 6, 18 ± 6, 19 ± 5 and 19 ± 6 mL•kg-1; and calculated mucosal pressure was 38 ± 14, 55 ± 20, 56 ± 19 and 57 ± 20 cm H2O. Airway sealing pressure, expired tidal volume at airway sealing pressure and calculated mucosal pressures increased with cuff inflation volume (all: P <= 0.0002). Esophageal leak was detected in 9% (8/90), but only at peak pressures >= 35 cm H2O and cuff inflation volumes >= 40 mL. Lightwand-guided intubation was successful in 82% (74/90) of patients. Mild, moderate and severe blood staining was detected in 40% (36/90), 15% (13/90) and 1% (1/90) respectively. Blood staining was more frequent after adjusting maneuvers (22/54 vs 32/36, P = 0.002).

Conclusion: The PAX has a high insertion success rate and is an effective ventilatory device with a low risk of gastric insufflation, but has a moderately high failure rate for lightwand-guided intubation and is associated with a relatively high incidence of mucosal trauma. Mucosal pressures may exceed pharyngeal perfusion pressure.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
A. Lallo, P. Drolet, and M. Lacroix
Performance of the PAXpressTM vs the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway during general anesthesia: [Efficacite du PAXpressTM et du masque larynge ProSealTM durant l'anesthesie generale]
Can J Anesth, January 1, 2007; 54(1): 28 - 33.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
O. Hung and J. A. Law
Advances in airway management
Can J Anesth, June 1, 2006; 53(6): 628 - 631.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. M. Miller
A Proposed Classification and Scoring System for Supraglottic Sealing Airways: A Brief Review
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1553 - 1559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
The PAxpress: An Addition to the Airway Adjunct Armamentarium
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, June 24, 2003; 2003(624): 12 - 12.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.