PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 22, 2026Indian Journal of Anaesthesia2 citationsOpen Access

Cricoid versus paratracheal pressure as airway protective manoeuvres for oesophageal occlusion: A prospective randomised cross-over study

View Full Paper
BKB. Shashi KanthAPAnde PratyushaDKDilip Kumar Kulkarni

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the effectiveness of cricoid pressure and paratracheal pressure in achieving oesophageal occlusion and glottic visualization.
  • Prospective, randomized, cross-over study with 134 adult surgical patients.
  • Three anaesthesiologists conducted video laryngoscopy and nasogastric tube insertion, with one applying either cricoid or paratracheal pressure based on randomization.
  • Oesophageal occlusion assessed and POGO scores recorded during nasogastric tube attempts.
  • Cricoid pressure achieved oesophageal occlusion in 128 (95.52%) patients versus 109 (81.34%) for paratracheal pressure (P < 0.001).
  • Median POGO scores for cricoid pressure were 90 (30) compared to 70 (30) for paratracheal pressure (P < 0.001).
  • Confidence intervals for POGO scores indicated a meaningful difference in glottic visualisation between the two methods.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background and Aims: Cricoid pressure (CP) is routinely used during rapid sequence induction to prevent aspiration, though its effectiveness remains debated. Paratracheal pressure (PP) has emerged as a possible alternative. This study compared CP and PP with respect to oesophageal occlusion and glottic visualisation using the Percentage of Glottic Opening (POGO) score. Methods: This is a prospective, randomised, cross-over study on 134 adult surgical patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I–II). Three anaesthesiologists participated in a blinded manner: One performed video laryngoscopy and nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion, the second applied CP or PP according to randomisation, and the third recorded outcomes. After induction, video laryngoscopy was performed, and a 16-Fr NGT insertion was attempted three times, first without pressure and then with either CP or PP for the next two attempts. Oesophageal occlusion was assessed by the inability to advance the NGT ≥15 cm. The POGO score was recorded for each attempt. Intubation and standard general anaesthesia followed. Results: CP demonstrated a significantly higher success rate of oesophageal occlusion compared with PP, with proportions n (%) of 128 (95.52%) and 109 (81.34%) ( P < 0.001), respectively. The median (interquartile range) POGO scores of CP and PP were 90 (30) and 70 (30) ( P < 0.001), respectively. The 95% confidence intervals of 80–90 and 60–80 for CP and PP, respectively, did not overlap, indicating a meaningful difference in glottic visualisation. Conclusion: CP is more effective than PP in achieving oesophageal occlusion and provides better glottic visualisation. PP, however, with a significantly good success rate, is a reasonable alternative when CP is unsuitable.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kanth et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff420d674f7c03778d425https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1607_25
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper