INTRODUCTIONThe LMA Supreme™, i-gel ® and LMA ProSeal™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices. We tested the hypothesis that these devices differ in performance when used for spontaneous ventilation during anaesthesia.METHODS 150 patients who underwent general anaesthesia for elective surgery were randomly allocated into three groups. Data was collected on oropharyngeal leak pressures, ease and duration of device insertion, ease of gastric tube insertion, and airway safety. RESULTSLeak pressure, our primary outcome measure, was found to be higher for the i-gel than the Supreme and ProSeal (mean ± standard error of the mean: 27.31 ± 0.92 cmH 2 O, 23.60 ± 0.70 cmH 2 O and 24.44 ± 0.70 cmH 2 O, respectively; p = 0.003). Devices were inserted on the first attempt for 90%, 82% and 72% of patients in the i-gel, Supreme and ProSeal groups, respectively (p = 0.105); mean device placement times were 23.58 seconds, 25.10 seconds and 26.34 seconds, respectively (p = 0.477). Gastric tubes were inserted on the first attempt in 100% of patients in the Supreme group, and 94% of patients in the i-gel and ProSeal groups (p = 0.100). There was blood staining on removal in 9 (18%) patients in each of the Supreme and ProSeal groups, with none in the i-gel group (p = 0.007). The incidence of postoperative sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness was lowest for the i-gel. CONCLUSIONThe three devices were comparable in terms of ease and duration of placement, but the i-gel had higher initial oropharyngeal leak pressure and lower airway morbidity compared with the ProSeal and Supreme.

Background: Anesthesia for pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) has always been one of the challenges of anesthesia. As one of the leading cardiothoracic institutions in Southeast Asia, our hospital has vast interest in this subject. A local multidisciplinary team was deployed to an expert center in the United Kingdom (UK), and the experience was then integrated to the care of our patients. We present a case series of ten patients undergoing anesthesia for PEA, a first for our institution, and discuss techniques as well as potential complications. Methods: Patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension were reviewed by a multidisciplinary team, and those who were suitable for surgical intervention subsequently underwent PEA. A total of ten patients were identified and operated on. The perioperative management and conduction of anesthesia for all patients followed a protocol adapted from the expert center in the UK, with revisions to cater to our Asian population. Results: In the ten patients operated on, eight of them were successfully extubated on the first postoperative day. Apart from one incident of prolonged ventilator usage due to reperfusion lung injury and pneumonia, there were no major respiratory or hemodynamic complications. Certainly, six of the ten patients developed subdural hemorrhage after the commencement of enoxaparin, although none of them sustained any permanent neurological deficits. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that with careful planning and a well-outlined protocol, anesthesia for PEA in an Asian population can be achieved with favorable outcomes. Further fine-tuning of the protocol is still required based on local expertise.