• Users Online: 86
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 675-680

Gastric ultrasound assessment of non-laboring third trimester pregnant women and non-pregnant women


1 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Al-Azhar Faculty of Medicine for Boys, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Radiodiagnosis, Al-Azhar Faculty of Medicine for Boys, Cairo, Egypt

Date of Submission05-Oct-2019
Date of Decision05-Oct-2019
Date of Acceptance17-Nov-2019
Date of Web Publication10-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Mofeed A Abdelmaboud
Assistant Professor of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Al-Azhar Faculty of Medicine for Boys, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Al-Azhar Faculty of Medicine for Boys, El-Shiekh El-Shami street Squil Ausim Giza, Cairo, 12992
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sjamf.sjamf_81_19

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Background Qualitative and quantitative gastric ultrasound (US) assessment is a non-invasive method used successfully in both surgical patients and healthy volunteers.
Aim The primary outcome was to evaluate gastric content by US after fasting in both pregnant and non-pregnant women and to determine if there was difference in the aspiration risk between them. The secondary outcome is to determine whether US can be used for rapid assessment of gastric volume and risk of aspiration.
Patients and methods Fasted 135 non-laboring third trimester pregnant women (group P) and 135 non-pregnant women (group NP) fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in this study. Qualitative gastric US assessment was done for each patients in both groups after following fasting guideline. Patients showing grade 0 in both groups were further subdivided into three subgroups to drink either 100, 200, or 400 ml of water, then a second quantitative US assessment of antral cross-sectional area (CSA) (cm2) was done 2 min after drinking the water.
Results Regarding qualitative Arzola’s antral grading, grade 0 was significantly predominant in group NP (64.4 vs 51.1%), whereas grade 2 and solid content were predominant in group P (16.6 vs 3.7% and 8.1 vs 1.5%, respectively), but grade 1 was comparable between the two groups. With respect to CSA (cm2), it was significantly larger in group P than group NP with all volumes of water taken. There was a linear relationship between CSA and volumes of water taken in both groups.
Conclusion First, fasted pregnant patients were at more risk of aspiration as it showed more significant number of patients with grade 2 and solid contents but with less significant number of patients with grade 0 as compared with non-pregnant patients. Second, there was a linear relationship between CSA (cm2) and gastric fluid volume, so US can be used to assess preoperative gastric volume and risk of aspiration.

Keywords: non-laboring, non-pregnant, third trimester pregnant, ultrasound


How to cite this article:
Abdelmaboud MA, Sabra MM, Aly WE. Gastric ultrasound assessment of non-laboring third trimester pregnant women and non-pregnant women. Sci J Al-Azhar Med Fac Girls 2019;3:675-80

How to cite this URL:
Abdelmaboud MA, Sabra MM, Aly WE. Gastric ultrasound assessment of non-laboring third trimester pregnant women and non-pregnant women. Sci J Al-Azhar Med Fac Girls [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Oct 24];3:675-80. Available from: http://www.sjamf.eg.net/text.asp?2019/3/3/675/278046




  Introduction Top


In 1946, Mendelson reported for the first time that a pregnant woman died from pneumonia caused by aspiration of gastric contents during general anesthesia, so great attention was paid by anesthesiologists to develop fasting guidelines [1].

Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is one of the most serious complications of obstetric anesthesia. Pregnant women are at great risk for this complication related to increased gastric volume owing to delayed gastric emptying during labor, increased intragastric pressure as the gravid uterus favors gastroesophageal regurgitations, together with high risk of difficult intubation during general anesthesia [2]. So, the quantification of the gastric contents and volume may be of particular interest to anesthetists in case of emergency anesthesia in a laboring woman [3].

However, the gravid uterus introduces variations in the ultrasound (US) examination, as the stomach tends to be displaced cephalad and to the right when compared with nonpregnant subjects, which could affect volume estimation [4].

Bedsides, US is a valuable application for the assessment of gastric content and volume, which may change perioperative management [5].

Gastric US qualitative assessment allows accurate differentiation between an empty stomach and one containing clear fluids or solid/thick fluid contents [6].

Additionally, when clear fluid are present, US quantitative assessment can estimate gastric volume based on the cross-sectional area (CSA) of gastric antrum and can discriminates small volumes (≤1.5 ml/kg), consistent with baseline gastric secretions, from higher volumes that may increase risk of aspiration [7].

Although there is no strict ‘threshold volume’ above which there is increased risk of aspiration, gastric fluid volumes up to 1.5 ml/kg (around 100 ml for average adult) are common in fasting patients and are considered safe [8].


  Aim Top


The primary outcome was to evaluate gastric content after fasting in both pregnant and nonpregnant women and to determine if there was difference in the aspiration risk between them. The secondary outcome was to determine whether US can be used for rapid assessment of gastric volume and risk of aspiration.

Sample size justification

Med Cal program version 12.3.0.0 ‘Oostende’ (Belgium City) was used for calculating sample size. The statistical calculator is based on 95% confidence interval and 80% power of study, with α error of 5%, and according to a previous study by Chen et al. [9], so it can be relied on in this study, and according to this value, minimal produced sample size of 255 cases was enough to find such a difference. Assuming 5% dropout, the sample size would be 270 cases, which were subdivided into two equal groups.


  Patients and methodsmethod Top


After approval from Al-Azhar Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department in Cairo and Local Ethical Committee, and signed informed written consent from each patient, this study was done at Al-Hussein University Hospital in the period from August 2018 to March 2019.

Inclusion criteria included nonlaboring pregnant women with single fetus (gestational age ≥36 weeks), aged greater than or equal to 21 years, American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I–II, and able to understand the idea of the study.

Exclusion criteria included gestational age less than 36 weeks, age less than 21 years, obesity (defined by BMI ≥35 kg/m2), multiple pregnancies, polyhydramnios, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, patient refusal, previous history of gastric or esophageal surgery, and patients with history of gastroesophageal reflux or hiatus hernia.

All patients followed fasting guidelines (2 h for clear fluids, 6 h for a light meal, and 8 h for a fried or fatty meal). Preoperative antacid as aspiration prophylaxis was not routinely used.

A total of 135 non-labouring third trimester pregnant (group P) and 135 non-pregnant (group NP) patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in this study.

All scanning was done by a single operator with previous experience in the technique (>50 gastric US). The examination was done by Aloka machine (Aloka Europe Technical Centre, Carl Zeiss, Germay) using a curvilinear low-frequency transducer (3–5 MHz).

At first, qualitative US examination of gastric contents was performed after fasting in both groups.

The gastric contents was scored by using modification of the qualitative grading scale described by Arzola et al. [10], where grade 0 represents no gastric contents in both supine and the right lateral decubitus (RLD), grade 1 represents gastric contents was observed in RLD but not in supine decubitus, and grade 2 represents gastric content was observed in both supine and RLD.

The patients who showed Arzola’s grade 0 in both groups were further subdivided using computer randomization into three equal subgroups to drink either 100, 200, or 400 ml of water. The antral CSA (cm2) was scanned by US 2 0min after ingestion of water in the RLD, with head elevated 45°.

The group randomization numbers were concealed in sealed opaque envelopes that were opened after patient enrolment ([Table 1]).
Table 1 Sonographic imaging of the antrum and its content [11]

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

SPSS version 17 program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA), was used to enter data and statistical analysis. Data were presented as mean±SD, number, and percentage. Unpaired Student t-test was used for parametric data. χ2-Test was used for data collected as number (percentage). P value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


  Results Top


The two groups were comparable regarding patient characteristics ([Table 2]).
Table 2 Patient characteristics

Click here to view


Regarding Arzola’s antral grading, grade 0 was significantly predominant in group NP, whereas grade 2 and solid content were predominant in group P, but grade 1 was comparable between the two groups ([Table 3]).
Table 3 Arzolas antral grading in both group

Click here to view


The patients who showed Arzolas grade 0 in both groups were further subdivided into three equal subgroups (23 patients in group P and 29 patients in group NP) to drink either 100, 200, or 400 ml of water. The antral CSA (cm2) was scanned by US 2 min after ingestion of water.

With respect to CSA (cm2), it was significantly larger in group P than group NP with all volumes of water taken ([Table 4]). There was a linear relationship between CSA and volumes of water taken in both groups ([Figure 1],[Figure 2],[Figure 3],[Figure 4],[Figure 5],[Figure 6]).
Table 4 Cross-sectional area (cm2) for different volumes of water ingested

Click here to view
Figure 1 The cross-sectional area of gastric antrum shown by ultrasound after following fasting guidelines in a third trimester pregnant woman.

Click here to view
Figure 2 The cross-sectional area of gastric antrum shown by ultrasound after drinking 100 ml of water in a third trimester pregnant woman. GA, gastric antrum, IVC, inferior vena cava.

Click here to view
Figure 3 The cross-sectional area of gastric antrum shown by ultrasound after drinking 200 ml of water in a third trimester pregnant woman. GA, gastric antrum; IVC, inferior vena cava.

Click here to view
Figure 4 The cross-sectional area of gastric antrum shown by ultrasound after drinking 400 ml of water in a third trimester pregnant woman. GA, gastric antrum; IVC, inferior vena cava.

Click here to view
Figure 5 Clinical algorithm for gastric point of care ultrasound and aspiration risk [12]. Modified from http://www.gastricultrasound.org with permission.

Click here to view
Figure 6 Cross-sectional area (cm2) for different ingested water volumes.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The current study showed that Arzola’s antral grade 0 were significantly predominant in non-pregnant group (64.4 vs 51.1%), whereas grade 2 and solid content were predominant in pregnant group (15.6 vs 3.7% and 8.1 vs 1.5%, respectively), but grade 1 was comparable between the two groups (25.2% vs 30.4%). Jay et al. [13] found that, grades 0, 1, 2, and 3 were observed in 45.2%, 21.9%, 15.1%, 17.8% of parturient women, respectively. Putte et al. [11] observed that grades 0, 1, and 2 were shown in 66%, 28.3%, and 5.7% of patients, respectively, in pregnant groups and 66.7%, 21%, 12.3% of patients, respectively, in non-pregnant groups. Hakak et al. [14] showed that grades 0, 1, and 2 were shown in 13%, 78%, and 9% of pregnant women, respectively, but no women had solid volume. Our data differ from the work of Arzola et al. [10] who identified only one pregnant woman with a grade 2 antrum in their study of 103 term pregnant women. Perlas et al. [12] observed that antral grade 0 correspond to 0 ml gastric fluid volume, grade 1 correspond to volume less than 100 ml of 77% of patients, and grade 2 associated with volume more than 100 ml in 75% of participants. Arzola et al. [10] predicted gastric fluid volume in non-laboring pregnant women (0.4 ml/kg in grade 0, 1 ml/kg in grade 1, and 2.7 ml/kg in grade 2). Rouget et al. [4] found that grades 0, 1, and 3 were observed in 74%, 14%, and 12% of patients, respectively, in the pregnant group.

With respect to CSA (cm2) in the current study, it was significantly higher in pregnant group than non-pregnant group with all volume of water taken. There was a linear relationship between CSA and volume of water taken. Chen et al. [9] found that antral CSA increased according to intragastric fluid volume within the range of studied volumes, and the measured CSA by ultrasonography is linearly dependent on gastric volume, and they constructed formula based on demographic variables and the measured CSA for the prediction of volume values in pregnant women. The equation is volume (ml)=270.76+13.68×CSA−1.20×gestational age. Arzola et al. [15] observed improved linear relationship between the logarithm of CSA and ingested volume and developed a new formula for prediction of gastric volume based on CSA. The equation is volume (ml)=−327+ 215.2×log (CSA) (cm2). Hakak et al. [14] used the following formula in pregnant women to calculate the gastric volume in ml/kg: volume (ml/kg)=27.0+(14.6×right lateral CSA)−(1.28×age).


  Conclusion Top


First, fasted pregnant patients were at more risk of aspiration, showing more significant number of patients with grade 2 and solid contents but with less significant number of patients with grade 0 compared with non-pregnant patients. Second, there was a linear relationship between CSA (cm2) and gastric fluid volumes, so US can be used to assess preoperative gastric volume and risk of aspiration.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Mendelson CL. The aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs during obstetric anesthesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1946; 52:191–205.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kinsella SM, Winton AL, Mushambi MC, Ramaswamy K, Swales H, Quinn AC et al. Failed tracheal intubation during obstetric general anesthesia: a literature review. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015; 24:356–374.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wright PM, Allen RW, Moore J, Donnelly JP. Gastric emptying during lumbar extradural analgesia in labour: effect of fentanyl supplementation. Br J Anesth 1992; 68:248–251.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rouget C, Chassard D, Bonnard C, Pop M, Desgranges FP, Bouvet L. Changes in qualitative and quantitative ultrasound assessment of the gastric antrum before and after elective cesarean section in term pregnant women: a prospective cohort study. Anesthesia 2016; 71:1284–1290.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Alakkad H, Kruisselbrink R, Chin KJ, Niazi AU, Abbas S, Chan VWS et al. Point-of-care ultrasound defines gastric content and changes the anesthetic management of elective surgical patients who have not followed fasting instructions: a prospective case series. Canadian J Anesth 2015; 62:1188–1195.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
El-Boghdadly K, Kruisselbrink R, Chan VWS, Perlas A. Images in anesthesiology: gastric ultrasound. Anesthesiology 2016; 125:595.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Lobo DN, Hendry PO, Rodrigues G, Marciani L, Totman JJ, Wright JW et al. Gastric emptying of three liquid oral preoperative metabolic preconditioning regimens measured by magnetic resonance imaging in healthy adult volunteers: a randomised double-blind, crossover study. Clin Nutr 2009; 28:636–641.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Bisinotto FM, Pansani PL, Silveira LA, Naves AA, Peixoto AC, Lima HM et al. Qualitative and quantitative ultrasound assessment of gastric content. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2017; 63:134–141.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Chen X, Chen F, Zhao Q, Zhangc L, Liu Z. Ultrasonographic measurement of antral area for estimating gastric fluid volume in pregnant women. J Clin Anesth 2019; 53:5370–5373.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Arzola C, Perlas A, Siddiqui NT, Carvalho JC. Bedside gastric ultrasonography in term pregnant women before elective cesarean delivery: a prospective cohort study. Anesth Analg 2015; 121:752–758.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Putte VDP, Vernieuwe L, Perlas A. Term pregnant patients have similar gastric volume to non-pregnant females: a single-centre cohort study. Br J Anesth 2019; 122:79e85.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Perlas A, Davis L, Khan M, Mitsakakis N, Chan VW. Gastric sonography in the fasted surgical patient: a prospective descriptive study. Anesth Analg 2011; 113:93–97.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Jay L, Zieleskiewicz L, ois-Pierrick FD, Cogniat BR, Pop M, Boucher P et al. Determination of a cut-off value of antral area measured in the supine position for the fast diagnosis of an empty stomach in the parturient. A prospective cohort study. Eur J Anesthesiol 2017; 34:150–157.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hakak S, McCaul CL, Crowley L. Ultrasonographic evaluation of gastric contents in term pregnant women fasted for six hours. Int J Obstet Anesth 2018; 34:15–20.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Arzola C, Perlas A, Siddiqui NT, Downey K, Ye XY, Carvalho JCA. Gastric ultrasound in the third trimester of pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial to develop a predictive model of volume assessment. Anesthesia 2018; 73:295–303.  Back to cited text no. 15
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Aim
Patients and met...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed351    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]