LAUSR

BACKGROUND Despite reported superior intubation outcomes associated with Parker Flex-Tip (PFT) tubes compared with those associated with standard polyvinylchloride tubes, the efficacy and safety of PFT tubes remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES To compare the intubation outcomes between PFT and conventional standard polyvinylchloride tubes. DESIGN Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.DATA SOURCES Embase, Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed and the Cochrane controlled trials register from inception until 3 January 2021.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA All randomised trials comparing intubation outcomes between PFT (PFT group) and standard polyvinylchloride (standard polyvinylchloride group) tubes. RESULTS Analysis of the 13 eligible trials showed no significant difference in successful first-attempt intubation rate [risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.44] (6 trials, 568 participants), trauma risk (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.03) (5 trials, 501 participants) as well as the overall risks of epistaxis (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.31) (3 trials, 262 participants), sore throat (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17) (4 trials, 451 participants) and hoarseness (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14) (4 trials, 451 participants) between the two groups. However, the intubation time was slightly shorter (weighted mean difference -4.2 s, 95% CI -7.4 to -1.0 s) (8 trials, 759 participants) and the risks of severe epistaxis (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84) (3 trials, 262 participants) and overall difficulty in airway manipulation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80) (8 trials, 647 participants) were lower in the PFT group than those in the standard polyvinylchloride group. Trial sequential analysis conclusively confirmed a shorter intubation time with PFT tubes than with standard polyvinylchloride tubes, whereas other intubation outcomes were inconclusive. CONCLUSION The use of PFT tubes for airway manipulation was associated with a shorter intubation time compared with the standard polyvinylchloride tubes. The results of trial sequential analysis suggest the need for further trials and meta-analysis to compare other intubation outcomes associated with the two devices.TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020197670.