Hard-Candy Consumption Does Not Have an Effect on Volume and pH of Gastric Content in Patients Undergoing Elective Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2022-11-28 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S377421
Pawit Somnuke, Nuanprae Kitisin, Phornprasurt Chumklud, Pishsinee Kunavuttitagool, Penpuk Deepinta, Araya Wadrod, Warayu Prachayakul, Somchai Amornyotin, Nattaya Raykateeraroj
{"title":"Hard-Candy Consumption Does Not Have an Effect on Volume and pH of Gastric Content in Patients Undergoing Elective Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Pawit Somnuke, Nuanprae Kitisin, Phornprasurt Chumklud, Pishsinee Kunavuttitagool, Penpuk Deepinta, Araya Wadrod, Warayu Prachayakul, Somchai Amornyotin, Nattaya Raykateeraroj","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S377421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to determine the effect of hard candies on gastric content volume and pH in patients undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Additionally, the study evaluated the difficulty of the procedure, complications, and satisfaction levels of the endoscopist and patient.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A randomized controlled study equally recruited 108 outpatients to candy and control groups. The patients in the candy group could consume sugar-free candies within 2 hours before anesthesia, while the controls remained fasted. The endoscopic procedure began under topical pharyngeal anesthesia and intravenous sedation. A blinded endoscopist suctioned the gastric volume through an endoscope. A blinded anesthesia provider tested the gastric pH with a pH meter. The primary outcome variables were gastric volume and pH. The secondary outcome variables were complications, the difficulty of the procedure, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The characteristics of both patient groups were comparable. The mean gastric volume of the candy group (0.43 [0.27-0.67] mL/kg) was not significantly different from that of the control group (0.32 [0.19-0.55] mL/kg). The gastric pH of both groups was similar: 1.40 (1.10-1.70) for the candy group and 1.40 (1.20-1.90) for the control group. The procedure-difficulty score of the candy group was higher than that of the control group. The satisfaction scores rated by the endoscopist and the patients in both groups were comparable. In addition, most endoscopists and patients in the candy and control groups reported being \"very satisfied\". No complications were observed in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hard candies did not affect gastric volume or pH. Elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in adult patients who preoperatively consume candies could proceed to prevent delays and disruption of workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ee/d7/tcrm-18-1049.PMC9716931.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S377421","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the effect of hard candies on gastric content volume and pH in patients undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Additionally, the study evaluated the difficulty of the procedure, complications, and satisfaction levels of the endoscopist and patient.

Patients and methods: A randomized controlled study equally recruited 108 outpatients to candy and control groups. The patients in the candy group could consume sugar-free candies within 2 hours before anesthesia, while the controls remained fasted. The endoscopic procedure began under topical pharyngeal anesthesia and intravenous sedation. A blinded endoscopist suctioned the gastric volume through an endoscope. A blinded anesthesia provider tested the gastric pH with a pH meter. The primary outcome variables were gastric volume and pH. The secondary outcome variables were complications, the difficulty of the procedure, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

Results: The characteristics of both patient groups were comparable. The mean gastric volume of the candy group (0.43 [0.27-0.67] mL/kg) was not significantly different from that of the control group (0.32 [0.19-0.55] mL/kg). The gastric pH of both groups was similar: 1.40 (1.10-1.70) for the candy group and 1.40 (1.20-1.90) for the control group. The procedure-difficulty score of the candy group was higher than that of the control group. The satisfaction scores rated by the endoscopist and the patients in both groups were comparable. In addition, most endoscopists and patients in the candy and control groups reported being "very satisfied". No complications were observed in either group.

Conclusion: Hard candies did not affect gastric volume or pH. Elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in adult patients who preoperatively consume candies could proceed to prevent delays and disruption of workflows.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食用硬糖不会影响接受胃肠道内窥镜手术的患者胃内容物的体积和 pH 值:随机对照试验
目的:本研究旨在确定硬糖对择期接受食管胃十二指肠镜检查和结肠镜检查的患者胃内容量和 pH 值的影响。此外,该研究还评估了手术的难度、并发症以及内镜医师和患者的满意度:随机对照研究将 108 名门诊患者平均分为糖果组和对照组。糖果组患者可在麻醉前 2 小时内食用无糖糖果,而对照组则保持空腹。内窥镜手术在局部咽部麻醉和静脉镇静的情况下开始。盲人内镜医师通过内镜抽吸胃液。盲人麻醉师用pH计测试胃的pH值。主要结果变量是胃容量和 pH 值。次要结果变量为并发症、手术难度以及内镜医师和患者的满意度:结果:两组患者的特征相当。糖果组的平均胃容量(0.43 [0.27-0.67] mL/kg)与对照组(0.32 [0.19-0.55] mL/kg)相比无显著差异。两组的胃 pH 值相似:糖果组为 1.40(1.10-1.70),对照组为 1.40(1.20-1.90)。糖果组的手术难度评分高于对照组。两组内镜医师和患者的满意度评分相当。此外,糖果组和对照组的大多数内镜医师和患者都表示 "非常满意"。两组均未发现并发症:结论:硬糖不会影响胃容量或胃酸pH值。对于术前食用糖果的成年患者,可继续进行选择性胃肠道内窥镜手术,以避免延误和中断工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
期刊最新文献
Experts’ Opinion in Fabry Disease Management and the Unmet Medical Need: The Saudi Perspective Thromboelastography in Long-Term Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Diagnosed with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Undergoing Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Retrospective Study Drug Therapy Problems Identified by Clinical Pharmacists at a General Surgery Ward of an Academic Referral Hospital in Jordan Time in Therapeutic Range of Unfractionated Heparin-Based Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Umbilical Vascular Thromboembolism: High-Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Management, and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Scoping Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1