Ultrasonographic assessment of preoperative gastric volume in patients with dyspepsia: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing gastroenteroscopy during sedation are prone to aspiration, and most patients with dyspepsia have delayed gastric emptying. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of measuring the gastric antrum cross-sectional area (CSA) to supply a novel clinical diagnostic reference value in patients with dyspepsia. METHODS: Patients with dyspepsia undergoing elective gastroscopy were included. The Perlas qualitative 0-2 grading scale score was determined before the operation. The anteroposterior diameter (D1) and craniocaudal diameter (D2) between gastric antrum serosal surfaces were measured perpendicular to each other in the supine and right lateral decubitus (RLD) positions. CSA values in the supine position and RLD position were determined. Gastric contents were endoscopically suctioned with the volumes measured and noted as actual gastric volume. Multiple regression analysis was used to fit a mathematical model for estimating the gastric volume. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine the accuracy of RLD CSA to detect gastric volumes of > 0.8 ml/kg. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were enrolled and divided into a functional dyspepsia (FD) group and an organic dyspepsia group according to gastroscopy findings. For a gastric volume of > 0.8 ml/kg, cut-off values for FD and organic dyspepsia were 6.7 cm2 and 10.0 cm2, respectively. Two new modified mathematical models were derived to predict an estimated gastric volume for FD and organic dyspepsia: volume = 3.93 × RLD CSA - 0.47 × age; and volume = 6.15 × RLD CSA - 0.61 × age. CONCLUSION: We used the cut-off value of the antral area for the fast diagnosis of gastric volumes in patients with dyspepsia, which may assist clinicians in identifying patients at risk of aspiration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.chictr.org.cn ( CHICTR-DDD-17010871 ); registered 15 March 2017.

Comparative efficacy of Neuraxial and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The choice of anesthesia technique remains debatable in patients undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effect of neuraxial (epidural/spinal) versus general anesthesia on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies focused on the comparison between neuraxial and general anesthesia in hip fracture patients between January 2000 and May 2019. Perioperative outcomes were extracted for systemic analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni correction and the leave-one-out method. The evidence quality for each outcome was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1084 patients fulfilled our selection criteria. The outcomes for the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.56, 3.21; P = 0.51), length of stay (MD = - 0.65, 95% CI -0.32, 0.02; P = 0.06), and the prevalence of delirium (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.27, 4.00; P = 0.95), acute myocardial infarction (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.17, 4.65; P = 0.88), deep venous thrombosis (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.09, 2.72; P = 0.41), and pneumonia (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.23, 4.61; P = 0.96) for neuraxial anesthesia compared to general anesthesia, and there was a significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (MD = - 137.8, 95% CI -241.49, - 34.12; p = 0.009). However, after applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, all the adjusted p-values were above the significant threshold of 0.05. The evidence quality for each outcome evaluated by the GRADE system was low. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our present study demonstrated that there might be a difference in blood loss between patients receiving neuraxial and general anaesthesia, however, this analysis was not robust to adjustment for multiple testing and therefore at high risk for a type I error. Due to small sample size and enormous inconsistency in the choice of outcome measures, more high-quality studies with large sample size are needed to clarify this issue.