This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hagberg, C. A. Articles by Ovassapian, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hagberg, C. A. Articles by Ovassapian, A.

The incidence of gastroesophageal reflux and tracheal aspiration detected with pH electrodes is similar with the Laryngeal Mask Airway® and Esophageal Tracheal Combitube® - a pilot study

[L’incidence de reflux gastro-sophagien et d’aspiration trachéale détectés au moyen d’électrodes à pH est similaire avec l’usage du Laryngeal Mask Airway® ou du Esophageal Tracheal Combitube® - une étude pilote]

Carin A. Hagberg, MD^*, Tigran N. Vartazarian, MD^*, Jacques E. Chelly, MD PhD MBA and Andranik Ovassapian, MD

^* From the Departments of Anesthesiology, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas;
The University of Pittsburgh-School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Carin A. Hagberg, Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Texas-Houston Medical School, 6431 Fannin, MSB 5.020, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. Phone: 713-500-6240; Fax: 713-500-6270; E-mail: carin.a.hagberg{at}uth.tmc.edu

Purpose: Aspiration as a result of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and regurgitation remains a serious potential problem in anesthetized patients. The incidence of GER with either the Esophageal Tracheal Combitube^TM (ETC) or the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was investigated using tracheal and esophageal pH electrodes.

Methods: Following approval by the Institutional Review Board and written informed consent, 57 patients of ASA physical status I to III were randomly assigned to receive either an LMA (Group I, n = 28) or an ETC (Group II, n = 29) during general anesthesia. All patients were paralyzed and received positive pressure ventilation. Two monocrystalline antimony catheters were used for pH monitoring: one unipolar catheter with a single pH sensor for tracheal pH measurements and one bipolar catheter with proximal and distal sensors for pharyngeal and esophageal pH measurements, respectively.

Results: One episode of GER occurred in a patient in Group II, yet there were no pH changes reflected in the oropharyngeal or tracheal regions. There were 3/25 (12%) patients in Group I vs 1/25 (4%) patients in Group II that met the pH criterion for aspiration (pH below 4.0 that lasted at least 15 sec), yet no patient developed any clinical signs of aspiration. In all patients, hemodynamic and respiratory variables remained stable throughout the period of measurement (data not included).

Conclusion: In this pilot study, the ETC appears comparable to the LMA regarding the incidence of GER and tracheal acid aspiration.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Bercker, W. Schmidbauer, T. Volk, G. Bogusch, H. P. Bubser, M. Hensel, and T. Kerner A Comparison of Seal in Seven Supraglottic Airway Devices Using a Cadaver Model of Elevated Esophageal Pressure Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2008; 106(2): 445 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Hickman Prehospital advanced airway management for trauma in the United Kingdom: how, when and by whom? Trauma, July 1, 2006; 8(3): 169 - 177. [Abstract] [PDF]