4.6 Article

Gastric pH and residual volume after 1 and 2 h fasting time for clear fluids in children

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 114, Issue 3, Pages 477-482

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu399

Keywords

anaesthesia; anaesthesia recovery period; clinical trial

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Current guidelines suggest a fasting time of 2 h for clear fluids, which is often exceeded in clinical practice, leading to discomfort, dehydration and stressful anaesthesia induction to patients, especially in the paediatric population. Shorter fluid fasting might be a strategy to improve patient comfort but has not been investigated yet. This prospective clinical trial compares gastric pH and residual volume after 1 vs 2 h of preoperative clear fluid fasting. Methods. Children (1-16yr, ASA I or II) undergoing elective procedures in general anaesthesia requiring tracheal intubation were randomized into group A with 60 min or B with 120 min preoperative clear fluid fasting. To determine gastric pH and residual volume, the gastric content was sampled in supine, left and right lateral patient position using an oro-gastric tube after intubation. Data are median (interquartile range) for group A or B (P<0.05). Results. In total, 131 children aged 1.01-16.23 yr were included; gastric pH was determined in 120 cases. Patient characteristic data were similar between the two groups, except for gender (46/33 males in group A/B; P=0.02). Despite significantly shorter fasting times for clear fluids in group A compared with group B (76/136 min; P<0.001), no significant difference was observed regarding gastric pH [1.43 (1.30-1.56)/1.44 (1.29-1.68), P=0.66] or residual volume [0.43 (0.21-0.84)/0.46 (0.19-0.78) ml kg(-1), P=0.47]. Conclusion. One hour clear fluid fasting does not alter gastric pH or residual volume significantly compared with 2 h fasting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available