Cited by 176Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

When fasted is not empty: a retrospective cohort study of gastric content in fasted surgical patients

Open access
Van de Putte, P, Vernieuwe, L, Jerjir, A, Verschueren, L, Tacken, M, Perlas, A·2017·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Perioperative aspiration leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Point-of-care gastric ultrasound is an emerging tool to assess gastric content at the bedside. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of baseline gastric content on fasted elective surgical patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of full stomach (solid content or >1.5 ml kg−1 of clear fluid). Secondary outcomes included: gastric volume distribution (entire cohort, each antral grade); the association between gastric fullness, fasting intervals, and co-morbidities; anaesthetic management changes and incidence of aspiration. Results We identified 538 patients. Thirty-two patients (6.2%) presented with a full stomach. Nine of these (1.7%) had solid content and 23 (4.5%) had clear fluid >1.5 ml kg−1. An empty stomach was documented in 480 (89.8%) patients. The examination was inconclusive in the remaining 20 patients (5.0%). As expected, increasing antral grade was correlated with larger antral cross-sectional area and higher gastric volume (P<0.001). Of the 32 patients with a full stomach, only six had a documented risk factor for prolonged gastric emptying. The anaesthetic management was changed in all nine patients with solid content. No aspiration was reported. Conclusions This retrospective cohort study suggests that a small proportion of elective surgical patients may present with a full stomach despite the recommended duration of fasting. Further research is needed to establish the clinical implications of these findings in the elective setting. At present, the clinical role of gastric ultrasound continues to be for the evaluation of gastric contents to guide management when the risk of aspiration is uncertain or unknown.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bja/aew435

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van de Putte, P., Vernieuwe, L., Jerjir, A., Verschueren, L., Tacken, M., & Perlas, A.
Affiliations
  • Antwerp University Hospital (BE)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
118
Issue
3
Pages
363-371
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588664152
Cited by
176
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
Keywords
stomach contents, preoperative fasting, gastric volume, antral cross-sectional area, elective surgery, anesthetic management
MeSH terms
Adult, Fasting, Female, Gastrointestinal Contents, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Stomach, Ultrasonography, Cohort Studies, Elective Surgical Procedures, Point-of-Care Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review