SynthesisPediatric cardiology2026
Oral Versus Nasal Intubation in Infants and Young Children with Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is wide variability in intubation practice with lack of consensus regarding risks and benefits of nasal versus oral routes of intubation in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between oral and nasal intubation in children with cardiac disease. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science 10.23.2024. Methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Meta-analysis for pooled estimates of effect was performed for data in patients ≤ 2 years if ≥ 3 studies examined the outcome with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence (CI) reported. Fifteen studies were identified, including 2 randomized control trials and 4 additional prospective studies. Seven studies were registry-based and 8 were single center analyses. Thirteen studies were included in the metanalysis. Four studies had low-risk of bias. Primary outcomes included intubation process and safety factors (N = 3,791 patients) and endotracheal tube security (N = 61,081). Secondary outcomes included extubation failure (N = 11,779) and oral feeding (N = 389). Oral intubation (versus nasal) was associated with greater pooled odds of severe adverse events [OR 2.82 (95%CI 1.24-6.40)], multiple intubation attempts [1.49 (95% CI:1.06-2.10)], unplanned extubation [OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.27-2.09)], and 37% greater median time to full oral feeds [OR 1.37 (95%CI 1.15-1.64)]. Conversely, oral intubation was associated with lower pooled odds of being unable to intubate [OR 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.46)]. Overall, nasal intubation is a reasonable and safe option with possibly improved outcomes in children ≤ 2 years with cardiac disease at centers with the expertise to place and manage nasal endotracheal tubes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41231243What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.