Reinforcing the valuable role of gastric ultrasound for volume and content assessment: an observational study

Abstract Background Pulmonary aspiration is one of the most important complications in anesthesiology. Assessment of gastric content by ultrasound is a good method to quantify gastric volume and to determine the risk of intraoperative pulmonary aspiration. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of the gastric ultrasonography in the qualitative analysis of gastric content, mainly in the analysis of small amounts of liquid content. Methods Gastric ultrasound was performed to 36 patients before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGI), making two longitudinal scans at the epigastric level, one in supine position and the other in right lateral decubitus position, measuring two diameters and the area of the gastric antrum and assessing the content characteristics determining whether it was an empty stomach or contained fluid or solid content. Subsequently, the ultrasound findings were compared with UGI findings. Results Gastric areas were analyzed by the trace and the lengths of the craniocaudal and anteroposterior axes concluding that there are no significant differences between the two methods. No statistically significant difference was found between UGI and US assessment technics. No statistically significant difference was found between the estimated volume by UGI and US. Conclusions Though our study has some limitations, qualitative analysis of gastric content using ultrasound followed by endoscopy enabled the conclusion that there are no differences in the qualitative assessment regarding these two techniques, supporting the important role of point-of-care gastric ultrasound (POCGUS) in the assessment of pulmonary aspiration risk by the anesthesiologist in the perioperative period.

Reinforcing the valuable role of gastric ultrasound for volume and content assessment: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration is one of the most important complications in anesthesiology. Assessment of gastric content by ultrasound is a good method to quantify gastric volume and to determine the risk of intraoperative pulmonary aspiration. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of the gastric ultrasonography in the qualitative analysis of gastric content, mainly in the analysis of small amounts of liquid content. METHODS: Gastric ultrasound was performed to 36 patients before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGI), making two longitudinal scans at the epigastric level, one in supine position and the other in right lateral decubitus position, measuring two diameters and the area of the gastric antrum and assessing the content characteristics determining whether it was an empty stomach or contained fluid or solid content. Subsequently, the ultrasound findings were compared with UGI findings. RESULTS: Gastric areas were analyzed by the trace and the lengths of the craniocaudal and anteroposterior axes concluding that there are no significant differences between the two methods. No statistically significant difference was found between UGI and US assessment technics. No statistically significant difference was found between the estimated volume by UGI and US. CONCLUSIONS: Though our study has some limitations, qualitative analysis of gastric content using ultrasound followed by endoscopy enabled the conclusion that there are no differences in the qualitative assessment regarding these two techniques, supporting the important role of point-of-care gastric ultrasound (POCGUS) in the assessment of pulmonary aspiration risk by the anesthesiologist in the perioperative period.

A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon. CONCLUSIONS: An evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.