Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 10).

From: The impact of esophageal device insertion on cuff pressure of endotracheal tube: a literature review and meta-analysis

Study (year)

Age (years)

Male (%)

BMI (kg/m2)

Procedure

ED

n

Airway

device size

Definition of HCP (cmH2O)

Incidence of HCP

Mean CP change (cmH2O)

NOS

Tan 201124

60.3

79

25.1

CS

TEE probe

38

7–7.5 mm¶

 > 35

45%

8.5

8

Hung 201427

34

28.3

37.7

BS

OG tube

60

7–8 mm¶

 > 30

50%

8.3

8

Kim 201529

66.8¶; 61.8‡

86.4¶

59.1‡

23.4¶

23.7‡

CS

TEE probe

44

7–7.5 mm¶, 32-39Fr‡

 > 40

18.2%¶,

40.9%‡

6.9

12

8

Ozayar 201630

38

35

44.5

BS

OG tube

40

7.5–8 mm¶

NA

NA

5.6

NA§

Balaban 201725

11.3

50

NA

EGD

EGD probe

13

NA¶

NA

NA

5

8

Kamata 201728

0.5–14

NA

15.3–20.3

CS

TEE probe

80

3–7 mm¶

 > 30

22.50%

3.6

8

Borde 202026

55

69.3

23.3

CS

TEE probe

65

7–8.5 mm¶

 > 30

40%

8

8

Pan 202031

2.9–24.6

60.3

22.2

CS

TEE probe

58

3–7.5 mm¶

 > 30

23–77.5%

3–12.3

8

Maddali 202240

55.7

73.5

28.7

CS

TEE probe

34

7.5–9 mm¶

NA

NA

20.3

8

Parajuli 202141

40.5

61.1

23.6

CS

TEE probe

36

7–7.5 mm¶

 > 30

50%

7.64

8

  1. BMI body mass index; EGD esophagogastroduodenoscopy; OG orogastric tube; TEE transesophageal echocardiography; HCP high cuff pressure; CP cuff pressure; BS Bariatric surgery; CS Cardiac surgery; NA not available; ED Esophageal device; ¶single tracheal tube; ‡DLT double lumen tube; NOS Newcastle − Ottawa scale; §risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.