CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01980108Updated May 2, 2016

Quantitative Ultrasound Assessment of Gastric Volume in Pregnant Women at Term

An interventional study of water in Respiratory Aspiration and Pregnancy, sponsored by Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 55 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-05-02.

Sponsored by Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital · Not applicable and Interventional

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 55 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Solid food or fluid residue in the stomach is always a major concern when patients need medical procedures under sedation or general anesthesia, due to the high risk of pulmonary aspiration of the stomach contents. This is especially important in emergency procedures, when a fasting period is not observed. The aspiration of the stomach contents into one's lungs can lead to serious complications (such as severe respiratory failure). Information from a bedside ultrasound assessment of the stomach may be a very useful tool to decide whether or not it's safe to proceed, cancel or delay a surgical procedure.

The investigotrs hypothesize that a mathematical model can be constructed to predict clear fluid volume in the stomach of non-labouring pregnant patients, as it has been developed in healthy adult volunteers.

Read the detailed description

Food residue in the stomach of patients scheduled to have surgery is considered a major risk factor for pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. The resulting respiratory compromise after aspiration is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The risk of pulmonary aspiration is especially important in pregnant women, as they may often require surgery without having observed appropriate fasting. A bedside ultrasound assessment of the status of the gastric content would be of great value for the clinician. This technique has recently been shown very promising in non-pregnant patients and it is important to study its feasibility in the pregnant population.

In this study, patients fast overnight and are randomized to the following groups: empty, or various volumes of fluid (50, 100, 200, 300 or 400mL of apple juice before scanning). Their gastric contents are then assessed by an anesthesiologist, using ultrasound. The investigators aim to evaluate a standardized quantitative ultrasound assessment of gastric volume in non-labouring pregnant women.

02

Conditions studied

  • Respiratory Aspiration
  • Pregnancy

Keywords

  • Pregnancy
  • Respiratory Aspiration
  • Gastric Contents
  • Ultrasound
03

In context

Respiratory Aspiration

1,092 studies on the registry are indexed under Respiratory Aspiration; 215 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 60 is above the median of 43 across 882 interventional studies indexed under Respiratory Aspiration.

Browse Respiratory Aspiration studies →

Lead sponsor

Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital is the lead sponsor of 135 studies on the registry; 17 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 55 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Volunteer non-labouring pregnant women at term (≥ 36 weeks)-
  • 18 years or older
  • ASA Physical Status I-III
  • 50-120 kg of weight
  • 150 cm of height or taller
  • Ability to understand the rationale of the study assessments and to provide signed informed consent
  • Written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Known pre-existing abnormal anatomy of the upper gastrointestinal tract
  • History of upper GI tract surgical procedure
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
60 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    empty stomach

    No fluid will be given to the patient prior to scanning.

  • Experimental
    50mL

    50mL of water will be given to the patient prior to scanning

    Other: water

  • Experimental
    100mL

    100mL of water will be given to the patient prior to scanning

    Other: water

  • Experimental
    200mL

    200mL of water will be given to the patient prior to scanning

    Other: water

  • Experimental
    300mL

    300mL of water will be given to the patient prior to scanning

    Other: water

  • Experimental
    400mL

    400mL of water will be given to the patient prior to scanning

    Other: water

Interventions

  • Otherwater

    water

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Correlation between ingested volume and CSA in antrum

    The patient will ingest 0, 50, 100, 200, 300 or 400mL of apple juice, and then the cross-sectional area (CSA) will be measured.

    Time frame: 5-10 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Mount Sinai Hospital
    Toronto, Ontario M5G1X5, Canada
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 2, 2016, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01980108
Lead sponsor
Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 8, 2013
Start date
Oct 2013
Primary completion
Feb 2016
Completion
Feb 2016
Last update
May 2, 2016

Study contacts

Cristian Arzola, MD
principal investigator · MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion