Blog

Feb 09, 2024

Comparison of the Jcerity endoscoper airway and the endotracheal tube in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 11849 (2023) Cite this article 247 Accesses Metrics details Various airway techniques have been used in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation (EVL). In

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 11849 (2023) Cite this article

247 Accesses

Metrics details

Various airway techniques have been used in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation (EVL). In this respect, Jcerity endoscoper airway (JEA) is a novel laryngeal mask airway that is designed for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In the present study, 164 patients who underwent EVL were randomly divided into JEA group or endotracheal tube (ETT) group (ratio: 1:1). Success rate of endoscopic procedure, endoscope insertion time, procedure duration, recovery time, airway technique extubation time, anesthesia costs, hospital stay duration, complications, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The success rate of EVL in the JEA group was noninferior to that in the ETT group (98.8% vs. 100.0%). The airway insertion time, anesthesia duration, and recovery time were significantly shorter in the JEA group than in the ETT group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the blood pressure during extubation was more stable in the JEA group (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were less heart rate variations during intubation (p < 0.005) and extubation (p < 0.05) in the JEA group. Nonetheless, the endoscopists’ satisfaction scores were comparable between the two groups. Overall, our findings suggest that JEA is efficient and safe for clinical use in EVL.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031892, Registered April 13, 2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchproj.html.

There has been a rapid increase in the use of nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) sites and services over the past decade1, with the use of anesthesia services in gastrointestinal (GI) suites increasing from 10.8 to 17.3% between 2010 and 20142. Patients in the GI suite frequently receive anesthesia without an endotracheal tube. During tubeless anesthesia, patients frequently transition between different depths of anesthesia3. Although sedation is usually performed safely, sedation without a controlled airway has been shown to have a higher incidence of respiratory depression (insufficient ventilation) in patients who are treated in non-ORs, and the resulting incidence of death events is also higher than that of patients who are treated in ORs4. Of note, cardiorespiratory arrest and hypoxia occurred more frequently in patients who underwent upper GI procedures than in those who underwent colonoscopy5.

EVL is one of the most challenging endoscopic procedures due to its high risks of perioperative bleeding and reflux6. Consequently, EVL is usually performed under deep anesthesia with or without endotracheal intubation7. Deep anesthesia can reduce body movement, choking, etc., thus reducing the risk of bleeding. Endotracheal intubation has shown great promise in achieving airway protection. It has been reported that patients who are operated on under propofol-based sedation without endotracheal intubation have a higher incidence of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) than patients who are operated on under anesthesia with endotracheal intubation (51.5% vs. 9.9%, p < 0.001). SRAEs include any peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90% and the use of airway maneuvers8. Nonetheless, general anesthesia via endotracheal intubation necessitates a substantial amount of anesthetic drugs that can further compromise liver function and prolong recovery. Furthermore, it can lead to significant hemodynamic fluctuations. Thus, different airway techniques have been explored for use in endoscopic EVL to enhance airway management, prevent hypoxia, and circumvent the need for intubation, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

The Jcerity Endoscoper Airway (Zhejiang Jcerity Medical Technology Co., Ltd) is a newly developed laryngeal mask that is specifically designed for endoscopy procedures in that it features an additional and separate groove at the back (Fig. 1). This device has shown promise in endoscopy at our gastrointestinal suite. Although there is a lack of research on the JEA, several studies are available on the LMA® Gastro™ airway (Teleflex Medical, Morrisville, North Carolina), a similar device featuring a 16 mm internal diameter gastroscopy channel9. A recent study revealed that the LMA® Gastro™ airway guarantees a high endoscope success rate and is easy to insert10, while another retrospective analysis demonstrated that the device is applicable for advanced endoscopic interventions in high-risk patients11. In addition, the LMA® Gastro™ airway device has been successfully applied in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), thereby validating its potential in treating high-risk patients who require airway management and have an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV physical status12,13,14. Currently, endoscopic adjuncts, such as the variceal banding kit, can increase the diameter of the endoscope (15–16 mm), thereby posing a challenge for the LMA® Gastro™ airway's gastroscopy channel (16 mm), as it does not allow smooth insertion of the endoscope. On the other hand, the JEA features a larger internal diameter gastroscopy channel (Size 3: 18 × 20 mm, Size 4: 20 × 22 mm), which enables the smooth insertion of the variceal banding kit to allow EVL. Nonetheless, there is a lack of prospective trial data on the efficacy of the LMA® Gastro™ airway and no data comparing the efficacies of JEA and ETT for high-risk patients undergoing complex endoscopic interventions such as EVL.

The dual channel Jcerity endoscope airway with silicon airway channel (orange arrow), and a separate endoscopy channel (green arrow) with groove design (blue arrow) for endoscope, which was shot and edited by Lu Li.

In this prospective controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of JEA in patients who received EVL.

This prospective, randomized, parallel‑group study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Zhengzhou, China) and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), with registration number ChiCTR2000031892 (13/04/2020). The study design adhered to the guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice15. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to the enrollment of 164 patients with liver cirrhosis. We enrolled 164 liver cirrhosis patients who were scheduled to undergo elective EVL between May and September 2020. Patients with acute variceal hemorrhage were excluded. Age, sex, weight, height, BMI, ASA, Mallampati score, and comorbidities were recorded. A random sequence table was used to randomly assign participants to either the JEA group or the endotracheal intubation (ETT) group. To ensure the validity of the randomization process, duplicated random sequences were placed in opaque, sealed envelopes and reviewed by observers before anesthetics were administered. All data were collected by an independent unblinded observer in the perioperative period. All participants fasted from solid food and clear liquids for at least 8 and 2 h, respectively. Blood pressure was monitored noninvasively, while electrocardiographic images, pulse oximetry, and bispectral indexes (BIS) were routinely monitored in the operating room. All patients were given medications to prevent nausea and vomiting (0.06 mg/kg tropisetron) and esophageal peristalsis (papaverine). In the JEA group, after preoxygenation with 100% oxygen for 3 min, general anesthesia was induced using propofol (1–1.5 mg/kg), etomidate (0.1–0.15 mg/kg), and sufentanil (0.08–0.12 μg/kg). The patients in the ETT group received intravenous propofol (1–1.5 mg/kg), etomidate (0.1–0.15 mg/kg), sufentanil (0.08–0.12 μg/kg), remifentanil (0.4–1 μg/kg), and rocuronium (0.3 mg/kg). After the patient lost consciousness and the eyelash reflex was no longer observed, the JEA was inserted. Endotracheal intubation was used for manual ventilation until the modified alertness and sedation score (MOAA/S score) reached a maximum of three points or less16. An attending anesthesiologist inserted all airway devices. The size of the JEA was based on the patient's weight and the manufacturer’s instructions. The insertion of the airway device was considered successful when there was effective movement of the chest wall, with an airway leak pressure > 25–30 cmH2O and square-wave capnographic traces. Ventilation parameters were set at a tidal volume of 8 ml/kg and a rate of 8–15 bpm to keep end‑tidal carbon dioxide tension at 35–40 mmHg. Anesthesia was maintained with 1‑1.5% sevoflurane (Abbott Core Laboratory, Chicago) and its depth was monitored by the BIS, ranging from 40 to 6017, and remifentanil (4‑6 µg/kg/h) was continuously infused through a micropump (syringe infusion pump Model 500). All anesthetic regimens were discontinued upon completion of the last ligation. Once the patient regained consciousness and achieved sufficient spontaneous respiration, the JEA or ETT was removed. All endoscopic interventions were completed by qualified attending endoscopists with at least 5 years of experience.

We recorded the procedure success rate and the time taken for endoscopy insertion, EVL completion and airway device insertion. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), SpO2, and BIS were recorded at the following time points: baseline (the mean of the last 3 recordings before induction) (T0), the time of intubation (T1), 5, 10, and 15 min after intubation (T2, T3, T4), and the time of extubation (T5). The differences between the 2 BP values at different time points (△BP) and △HR were noted. The hemodynamic parameters were recorded every 3 min, and bradycardia (HR < 50 bpm), hypotension (systolic pressure < 90 mmHg) and hypertension (BP > 160/100 mmHg) were recorded as hemodynamic events.

The procedure duration was defined as the time between intubation and extubation of the gastroscope, whereas recovery time was defined as the time between anesthesia withdrawal and discharge from the recovery room. Extubation time was defined as the time between the end of anesthesia and the removal of the airway device. Adverse events or complications, including hypotension, hypertension (BP > 160/100 mmHg), bradycardia, sore throat, postoperative nausea or vomiting, urinary retention, poor muscle strength, and reflux, were recorded during and after endoscopic interventions. The attending endoscopist's satisfaction with advancing and operating the endoscope was assessed via VAS score: 0 = not satisfied, 10 = very satisfied.

A previous study of the LMA Gastro demonstrated an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy success rate of 99%10. We assumed that the success rates of EVL in the two groups would both be 96%. The predefined noninferiority margin was an absolute difference of 8% between groups for the primary endpoint. With a noninferiority margin of 8% on the relative scale, a power of 90%, and a one-sided alpha of 2.5%, the total sample size needed was 126. Assuming a dropout rate of 20%, a minimum of 79 patients were recruited for each group.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 19.0 software. Normally distributed data were presented as the means ± standard deviations (SD). Student's t test was utilized to compare measurements with normal distributions in a random block design. Nonnormally distributed continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann‒Whitney U test, while Tukey's multiple comparison test was used to compare measurements at different points within the same group. Comparisons between 2 groups were performed using the Bonferroni posttests, while proportions were compared using the Chi-square or Fisher's tests. A P value < 0.05 was statistically significant.

This trial was approved by the Clinical Research and Trial Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University before its implementation. All the subjects who participated in the current trial signed informed consent forms.

The participant recruitment process is shown in Fig. 2. A total of 180 patients were screened for eligibility, and 165 patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected. One patient in the JEA group had to be excluded because they required ETT conversion. Eventually, 164 patients were recruited, with 82 patients in each group (JEA and ETT). Table 1 shows that there were no significant differences in the patients’ characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05).

A schematic representation of participant recruitment process.

All airway devices were successfully inserted within three attempts. The insertion time for JEA was significantly shorter than that for ETT (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

The success rate of EVL with the JEA was 98.8% (95% CI 96.6–100), with success defined as no more than three attempts. On the other hand, the success rate of EVL with the ETT was 100% (95% CI 100–100). The difference in success rates between the JEA and ETT groups was −1.2% (95% CI −3.4%, 0.9%). Our findings suggested that JEA was noninferior to ETT in patients who underwent elective EVL, with the noninferiority limit set to 8%. Both groups demonstrated a comparable first-attempt endoscopy success rate (95.1% vs. 96.3%, p > 0.999), and we observed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in their mean insertion times. One attempt to place the JEA was defined as unsuccessful because the endoscope was not successfully inserted after three attempts. Nonetheless, there was no difference in the attending endoscopist's satisfaction with advancing and operating the endoscope between the two groups (Table 2).

The JEA group exhibited shorter extubation time, shorter recovery time, procedure duration, and anesthesia duration compared to the ETT group (p < 0.05). Additionally, our analysis revealed that the use of JEA resulted in a significant reduction in anesthesia costs (p < 0.001) and hospital stays (p < 0.05) (Table 2).

The induction of anesthesia led to a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) in all participants, with these parameters gradually increasing between time points T4 and T5 (Fig. 3A,C). Notably, MAP fluctuations in the JEA group were significantly smaller than those in the ETT group at time points T4-T5 (p < 0.001), as presented in Fig. 3B. Furthermore, HR fluctuations in the JEA group were significantly smaller than those in the ETT group at time points T1-T2 (p < 0.05) and T4-T5 (p < 0.05, Fig. 3D).

Comparisons in MAP and HR differences between the ETT vs the JEA groups at different timepoints. (A) MAP at different timepoints in two groups; (B) Comparisons in MAP difference between the ETT vs the JEA groups at different timepoints; (C) HR at different timepoints in two groups; (D) Comparisons in MAP difference between the ETT vs the JEA groups at different timepoints; Data represents means ± SD. *p < 0.05.

We observed a lower incidence of sore throat in the JEA group than in the ETT group, although the difference between them was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Our analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or urinary retention (p > 0.05). Moreover, we observed no perioperative bleeding or reflux cases in either group. However, a higher number of patients in the ETT group exhibited a blood pressure reading higher than 160/100 mmHg during extubation (p < 0.05), and a higher proportion of patients in the ETT group exhibited poor muscle strength after extubation (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

This study provides evidence that the JEA is a viable option for airway management during EVL procedures under general anesthesia. In this respect, we observed that the success rate of EVL with the JEA was 98.8% (95% CI 96.6–100) and that first-attempt success rate was 96%. These results were consistent with previous studies on the LMA® Gastro™ airway (one similar airway device) for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/ERCP10,18. It should be noted that the variceal banding kit has a larger outer diameter (approximately 15–16 mm, Fig. 4) than gastroscopes used for EGDs (4.9–12.8 mm) and duodenoscopes (7.5–12.1 mm)19. The maximum diameter of an endoscope that could successfully pass through the endoscopy channel of the LMA® Gastro™ airway was 14 mm. Thus, an endoscope with a variceal banding kit could not pass through the LMA® Gastro™ airway. In contrast, the JEA has a larger and adjustable endoscope channel, thus facilitating endoscope advancement and operation (Table 4). In addition, the variceal banding kit increases the length of the endoscope tip, reducing endoscopic vision by 30%20, which could increase the difficulty of endoscope insertion. Nevertheless, the JEA’s endoscopy channel ends at the cuff's distal tip to align with the esophageal entrance, thereby facilitating endoscope insertion. As such, our endoscopists obtained equal or better access to the gastrointestinal tract with the JEA device as with the ETT. Furthermore, the JEA group had shorter procedure durations. No significant difference was observed in the endoscopist's satisfaction with endoscope advancement or operation between the JEA and ETT groups, indicating that the JEA could be a valuable alternative to the LMA® Gastro™ airway and endotracheal intubation for EVL.

Technical parameters of JEA and variceal banding kit, which was shot and edited by Lu Li. (A) Gastroduodenoscope with the variceal banding kit passing through the gastric channel of a JEA; (B) The outer diameter of variceal banding kit (Max 15.9 mm); (C) The diameter of the gastroduodenoscope with the variceal banding kit (16 mm).

In this study, there was no bleeding, reflux or other severe complications in the JEA group. Due to the high risks of perioperative bleeding and reflux6 associated with EVL, general anesthesia with ETT is often utilized to prevent aspiration. However, studies have shown that patients at high risk of aspiration have similar incidences of regurgitation when using either ETT or a supraglottic airway (SGA) with a gastric suction channel 21,22. The JEA has a crucial advantage over SGA in terms of airway protection as it enables direct suctioning under visualization during gastroscopy.

Nonoperating anesthesia is recommended to be efficient, timely, and safe23. The overall success rates achieved by the JEA and ETT devices in this study were equal to or greater than those reported in previous studies on the use of other supraglottic airway tools24. In addition, the JEA had a significantly shorter insertion time (14.7 (7.3) s) than the ETT and other supraglottic airway tools, such as the laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMS) (48.8 ± 45.6 s) and i-gel (34.7 ± 64.4 s)17. This finding can be attributed to the JEA device's soft material and flexibility, making it more easily insertable and practical in clinical settings. This flexibility is attributed to the groove at the back of the LMA, making it slightly thinner. The high success rate of JEA insertion may also be attributed to the patient's lateral position, which allows for a larger oropharyngeal cavity space and the tongue to fall out of the path of the airway device25 These reasons may contribute to the high level of endoscopist's satisfaction with JEA placement18.

Our study showed that JEA placement resulted in significantly shorter anesthesia durations, extubation times, and recovery times than ETT placement, potentially improving patient turnover efficiency. Furthermore, we observed more hemodynamic stability, lower anesthesia costs, and shorter hospital stays in the JEA group, which may be due to the LMA reducing the dosage of anesthetics needed, which subsequently shortens the recovery time following endoscopic procedures. In addition, muscle relaxants that may affect recovery time are not required when LMA is used. It is now understood that anesthetics can trigger vasodilation and negative inotropic effects, thereby affecting blood pressure and heart rate. Use of the JEA during anesthesia induction can potentially lead to several benefits, such as reducing the volume of anesthetic agents needed to maintain anesthesia, thus resulting in faster extubation, a shorter recovery time, better hemodynamic stability, and potentially lower anesthesia costs. The relatively high cost of the JEA device, which is approximately 310 yuan (equivalent to $45), could potentially be compensated by the decreased usage of anesthetic and vasoactive drugs and the elimination of the need for disposable laryngoscope lenses and muscle relaxant antagonists. Ultimately, the total anesthesia costs in the JEA group were lower than those in the ETT group. Furthermore, JEA could ease the transition between sleep and wakefulness in the EVL without stimulating the airway. Significantly lower rates of coughing and cardiovascular reactions have been reported during LMA® Gastro™ airway insertion and removal in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) than during ETT insertion and removal26. In the present study, extubation of the JEA caused minimal fluctuations in both the MAP and HR, without causing severe hypertension (> 160/100 mmHg). Collectively, these findings substantiate the efficacy and safety of the JEA.

Patients with liver cirrhosis often have multiple serious health conditions in addition to poor liver function. Therefore, reducing the volume of anesthetics used can help reduce the metabolic burden on the liver, prevent drug accumulation, and improve postoperative recovery while minimizing the incidence of complications. In this study, we observed a shorter recovery time in the JEA group but no significant differences in the incidence of complications between the two groups. Additionally, neither group experienced any instances of aspiration during the procedure. Deep anesthesia may be beneficial for reducing body movement during EVL and decreasing the risk of bleeding, thereby improving the procedure's success rate. Previous studies suggest that propofol-based TIVA can improve the adenoma detection rate27,28, while deep anesthesia using a LMA Gastro may improve common bile duct cannulation and stent placement29. The JEA improves airway access through a dedicated gastroscopy channel, thereby improving airway control and preventing hypoxia while avoiding the need for intubation in deep anesthesia during endoscopy.

Patients undergoing endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy were excluded from our study because there was a risk of glue sticking to the JEA.

Our study suggests that the JEA may be a safe alternative for patients undergoing EVL. Before final recommendations are made, it is necessary to conduct large multicenter trials to assess the impact of JEA on liver function and the clinical outcomes of EVL.

In conclusion, this study substantiated that JEA placement is effective and safe in EVL procedures, thus offering benefits such as a faster operating room turnover, better maintenance of hemodynamic stability, reduced patient anesthesia costs, and shorter hospital stays.

The datasets used during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation

Jcerity endoscoper airway

Laryngeal mask airway

Endotracheal tube

Cholangiopancreatography

Blood pressure

Heart rate

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Supraglottic airway

Bhavani, S. S. & Abdelmalak, B. Nonoperating room anesthesia: Anesthesia in the gastrointestinal suite. Anesthesiol. Clin. 37(2), 301–316 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Nagrebetsky, A., Gabriel, R. A., Dutton, R. P. & Urman, R. D. Growth of nonoperating room anesthesia care in the United States: A contemporary trends analysis. Anesth. Analg. 124(4), 1261–1267 (2017).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Goudra, B. et al. Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 30(5), 551–557 (2016).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Metzner, J., Posner, K. L. & Domino, K. B. The risk and safety of anesthesia at remote locations: The US closed claims analysis. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 22(4), 502–508 (2009).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Goudra, B. et al. Association between type of sedation and the adverse events associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy: An analysis of 5 years’ data from a tertiary center in the USA. Clin. Endosc. 50(2), 161–169 (2017).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

de Franchis, R. Revising consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno V consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. J. Hepatol. 53(4), 762–768 (2010).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Rahimzadeh, P., Safari, S., Faiz, S. H. & Alavian, S. M. Anesthesia for patients with liver disease. Hepat. Mon. 14(7), e19881 (2014).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Smith, Z. L. et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating general endotracheal anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care and the incidence of sedation-related adverse events during ERCP in high-risk patients. Gastrointest. Endosc. 89(4), 855–862 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Sorbello, M., Pulvirenti, G. S., Pluchino, D. & Skinner, M. State of the art in airway management during GI endoscopy: The missing pieces. Dig. Dis. Sci. 62(5), 1385–1387 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Terblanche, N., Middleton, C., Choi-Lundberg, D. L. & Skinner, M. Efficacy of a new dual channel laryngeal mask airway, the LMA(®)Gastro™ Airway, for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective observational study. Br. J. Anaesth. 120(2), 353–360 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Schmutz, A., Loeffler, T., Schmidt, A. & Goebel, U. LMA Gastro™ airway is feasible during upper gastrointestinal interventional endoscopic procedures in high risk patients: A single-center observational study. BMC Anesthesiol. 20(1), 40 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Skinner, M. W., Galloway, P. S., McGlone, D. J. & Middleton, C. Use of the LMA® Gastro™ Airway, a novel dual channel laryngeal mask airway, for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A report of two cases. Anaesth. Intens. Care. 46(6), 632 (2018).

CAS Google Scholar

Aiello, L., Corso, R. M., Bellantonio, D. & Maitan, S. LMA Gastro Airway® Cuff Pilot for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A preliminary experience. Minerva Anestesiol. 85(7), 802–804 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Tran, A. et al. LMA® Gastro™ Airway for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A retrospective observational analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 20(1), 113 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Saito, K. et al. Reliability of Japanese clinical trials estimated from GCP audit findings. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 46(8), 415–420 (2008).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kim, T. K., Niklewski, P. J., Martin, J. F., Obara, S. & Egan, T. D. Enhancing a sedation score to include truly noxious stimulation: the Extended Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (EOAA/S). Br. J. Anaesth. 115(4), 569–577 (2015).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tang, L. et al. Sevoflurane may be more beneficial than propofol in patients receiving endoscopic variceal ligation and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy: A randomized, double-blind study. Exp. Ther. Med. 14(4), 3145–3152 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hagan, K. B. et al. Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Anesth. Analg. 131(5), 1566–1572 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Cappell, M. S. & Friedel, D. M. Stricter national standards are required for credentialing of endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography in the United States. World J. Gastroenterol. 25, 3468–3483 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Van Stiegmann, G., Cambre, T. & Sun, J. H. A new endoscopic elastic band ligating device. Gastrointest. Endosc. 32, 230–233 (1986).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Benger, J. R. et al. Effect of a strategy of a supraglottic airway device vs tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on functional outcome: The AIRWAYS-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320(8), 779–791 (2018).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Yao, W. Y. et al. Comparison of Supreme laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation for airway management during general anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 19(1), 123 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Chang, B. & Urman, R. D. Non-operating room anesthesia: The principles of patient assessment and preparation. Anesthesiol. Clin. 34(1), 223–240 (2016).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Shin, W. J., Cheong, Y. S., Yang, H. S. & Nishiyama, T. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 27(7), 598–601 (2010).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Kim, M. H., Lee, J. H., Choi, Y. S., Park, S. & Shin, S. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and the i-gel in paralysed elderly patients: A randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 35(8), 598–604 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Hu, Z. et al. The effect of gastroscopy laryngeal mask on airway management in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopic submucosal dissection surgery. Chin. J. Anesthesiol. 37(8), 1 (2017).

Google Scholar

Thirumurthi, S. et al. Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams. World J. Gastrointest. Endosc. 9(4), 177–182 (2017).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Krigel, A. et al. Anesthesia assistance in screening colonoscopy and adenoma detection rate among trainees. Dig Dis. Sci. 65(4), 961–968 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Zhou, W. et al. Risk factors for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a retrospective analysis of 7,168 cases. Pancreatology 11(4), 399–405 (2011).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

This study adhered to the CONSORT guidelines.

These authors contributed equally: Le Zhang and Lu Li.

Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No. 1 Jianshe East Road, Erqi District, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China

Le Zhang, Lu Li, Can Zhao, Erxian Zhao, Yanrong Li & Yunqi Lv

Department of Operation Room, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

Jun Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Y.L. conceived the study, analyzed the experimental results and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. L.Z. and L.L. completed the main experiment, performed the statistical analysis and created the figures. J.W., C.Z., E.Z., Y.L. helped to recruit patients, collect clinical information, etc. All the authors assisted in the refinement of the study protocol and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Correspondence to Yunqi Lv.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Zhang, L., Li, L., Wang, J. et al. Comparison of the Jcerity endoscoper airway and the endotracheal tube in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep 13, 11849 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39086-6

Download citation

Received: 20 November 2022

Accepted: 20 July 2023

Published: 22 July 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39086-6

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.