Ph and residual gastric volume after mannitol preparation: A randomized controlled study comparing ingestion three versus six hours prior to the procedure

R. Ruiz, J. Jukemura, P. Alves, M. Santos
{"title":"Ph and residual gastric volume after mannitol preparation: A randomized controlled study comparing ingestion three versus six hours prior to the procedure","authors":"R. Ruiz, J. Jukemura, P. Alves, M. Santos","doi":"10.4172/Clinical-Investigation.1000131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The main objective of the study is to compare gastric volume and pH values after the ingestion of mannitol three hours versus six hours before a colonoscopy procedure. Methods: This study is a parallel randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, involving ambulatory patients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy procedure, not having previous gastric surgeries, with an American Society of Anesthesiology risk of less than III, older than 18 years of age, and with a fasting period for solid food of over eight hours. All participants underwent a bowel preparation with mannitol, being randomized to start the preparation either three or six hours before the colonoscopy procedure. Outcomes of interest were pH and gastric residual volume. Results: The study sample included 102 subjects with subjects in the three-hour group being significantly older than individuals in the six-hour group (59.73 (± 18.69) vs. 51.71 (± 20.46); p=0.041) and subjects in the six-hour group presented higher BMI than individuals in the three-hour group (28.55 (± 5.15) vs. 26.35 (± 5.78); p=0.046). When evaluating study outcomes adjusting for baseline imbalances in age and BMI, we found no statistically significant differences between the three and the six-hour arms. In a subgroup analysis among the subgroup of patients with Diabetes Mellitus, the six-hour arm presented a significantly higher gastric volume when compared to the three-hour arm (127 versus 43.4 and 116 versus 37.8), respectively. Conclusion: Our results are in line with the notion that a three-hour fasting period is safe to prevent aspiration from gastric content during bowel preparation with mannitol. Considering that long fasting protocols may result in adverse outcomes such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, we provide evidence to support the practice of short fasting periods.","PeriodicalId":10369,"journal":{"name":"Clinical investigation","volume":"7 1","pages":"75-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical investigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/Clinical-Investigation.1000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The main objective of the study is to compare gastric volume and pH values after the ingestion of mannitol three hours versus six hours before a colonoscopy procedure. Methods: This study is a parallel randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, involving ambulatory patients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy procedure, not having previous gastric surgeries, with an American Society of Anesthesiology risk of less than III, older than 18 years of age, and with a fasting period for solid food of over eight hours. All participants underwent a bowel preparation with mannitol, being randomized to start the preparation either three or six hours before the colonoscopy procedure. Outcomes of interest were pH and gastric residual volume. Results: The study sample included 102 subjects with subjects in the three-hour group being significantly older than individuals in the six-hour group (59.73 (± 18.69) vs. 51.71 (± 20.46); p=0.041) and subjects in the six-hour group presented higher BMI than individuals in the three-hour group (28.55 (± 5.15) vs. 26.35 (± 5.78); p=0.046). When evaluating study outcomes adjusting for baseline imbalances in age and BMI, we found no statistically significant differences between the three and the six-hour arms. In a subgroup analysis among the subgroup of patients with Diabetes Mellitus, the six-hour arm presented a significantly higher gastric volume when compared to the three-hour arm (127 versus 43.4 and 116 versus 37.8), respectively. Conclusion: Our results are in line with the notion that a three-hour fasting period is safe to prevent aspiration from gastric content during bowel preparation with mannitol. Considering that long fasting protocols may result in adverse outcomes such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, we provide evidence to support the practice of short fasting periods.
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
甘露醇制备后的Ph值和残余胃容量:一项随机对照研究,比较手术前3小时和6小时的摄入情况
目的:本研究的主要目的是比较结肠镜检查前3小时和6小时摄入甘露醇后的胃容量和pH值。方法:本研究是一项平行随机对照试验,按1:1的分配比例,纳入计划行结肠镜检查的门诊患者,既往无胃手术史,美国麻醉学会风险小于III,年龄大于18岁,固体食物禁食时间超过8小时。所有参与者都进行了甘露醇肠道准备,随机分配到结肠镜检查前3小时或6小时开始准备。我们关注的结果是pH值和胃残余体积。结果:研究样本包括102名受试者,3小时组受试者明显大于6小时组受试者(59.73(±18.69)比51.71(±20.46));p=0.041), 6小时组的BMI高于3小时组(28.55(±5.15)vs. 26.35(±5.78);p = 0.046)。在评估研究结果时,调整了年龄和BMI的基线不平衡,我们发现3小时组和6小时组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。在糖尿病患者亚组的亚组分析中,6小时组的胃容量明显高于3小时组(127比43.4,116比37.8)。结论:我们的研究结果与以下观点一致:在甘露醇肠道准备过程中,3小时禁食可以安全防止胃内容物误吸。考虑到长时间禁食可能导致脱水和电解质失衡等不良后果,我们提供证据支持短时间禁食的做法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Targeting TGF-beta pathway with COVID-19 Drug Candidate ARTIVeda/PulmoHeal Accelerates Recovery from Mild-Moderate COVID-19 A Prospective on Allergic Rhinitis Use of Cladribine for multiple sclerosis treatment: An image article Thalidomide may be an effective medicine for Blau Syndrome Prophylactic administration of a clinically safe low dose of the COVID-19 drug candidate Rejuveinix (RJX) effectively prevents fatal cytokine storm and mitigates inflammatory organ injury in a mouse model of sepsis
×
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