A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Supine vs. Nonsupine Endotracheal Intubation.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of supine vs. nonsupine positions during intubation.

Methods: Based on the literature from inception to October 2020, 13 studies with nonemergent intubation in supine and nonsupine positions were chosen using PRISMA and MOOSE protocols. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was a successful intubation, attempt, and duration of intubation. The secondary outcome was adverse events (trauma and hypoxia). Bias was evaluated qualitatively, by visual analysis, and quantitatively through the Egger test.

Results: The final analysis included 13 clinical trials with 1,916 patients. The pooled success rates in the supine vs. lateral positions were 99.21% and 98.82%. The supine vs. semierect positions were 99.21% and 98.82%. The 1st attempt success rate in the supine vs. lateral position was 85.35% and 88.56% compared to 91.38% and 90.76% for the supine vs. semierect position. The rate of total adverse events in the supine position was 3.73% vs. 6.74% in the lateral position, and the rate of total adverse events in the supine position was 0.44% vs. 0.93% in semierect position. Low to substantial heterogeneity was noted in our analysis. Discussion. There is no significant difference between total successful intubations and success from 1st intubation attempt between supine and nonsupine positions. However, there are slightly higher rates of adverse events in nonsupine position. Addition of more recent studies on supine vs. nonsupine intubations would improve this study. Given these findings, it is important to develop more studies regarding different intubation positions and techniques with the aim of improving efficacy and decreasing adverse outcomes. Other. This review is not registered in a public database. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.