Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is a serious patient safety problem accounting for 50% of anesthesia-related mortality. The risk is higher in patients undergoing emergency surgery as the gastric content is uncertain which poses a challenge to anesthetic decision-making. Standard clinical assessment to identify at-risk patients primarily relies on preoperative fasting guidelines and is not adequate for patients undergoing emergency surgeries. Point-of-care gastric ultrasound (GUS) has emerged as an accurate bedside tool providing information regarding the type and volume of gastric contents. When GUS was added to standard clinical assessment, anesthetic management plan changed in 71% of adult elective and 37% of pediatric emergency surgical procedures. Such data is lacking in adult patients undergoing emergency surgeries. The investigators propose a multicentre mixed-method study to evaluate the impact of GUS on aspiration risk assessment and subsequent Anesthetic Plan before emergency surgeries. The evidence from this study will improve patient safety by accurately identifying patients at risk of aspiration and tailoring anesthetic techniques and airway management to prevent pulmonary aspiration in patients undergoing emergency surgeries.
The proposed trial design is a mixed-method, multicenter study that includes a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a qualitative assessment component. The RCT will evaluate the impact of adding GUS to the standard clinical assessment on the incidence of changes in the anesthetic plan for adult patients undergoing emergency surgery. The qualitative assessment will gather attending anesthesiologists' opinions on the addition of GUS in an emergency surgical setting.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
142
Aspiration risk assessment by GUS
Proportion of change in Anesthetic Plan
The primary outcome of the study is a change from the initial anesthetic plan after viewing GUS results in the intervention group, and after being given the opportunity to revise the plan in the control group.
Time frame: Baseline
Percentage change in the three-category risk assessment before and after GUS
The secondary aim is only related to the intervention group, (1) to compare the aspiration risk assessment categories between the standard clinical assessment and GUS examination
Time frame: Baseline
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.