Retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis identifies risk factors for drug-related impaired gastric emptying, suggesting implications for patient safety.
Background Pulmonary aspiration remains a major perioperative patient safety issue. Drug-related impaired gastric emptying (IGE) is a recognized yet underappreciated risk factor for aspiration. With the increasing use of medications such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), concerns have grown regarding their potential to delay gastric emptying and thereby elevate aspiration risk. However, real-world data on drug-related IGE remain limited. Objective To identify risk factors for drug-related IGE using real-world pharmacovigilance data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods A retrospective pharmacovigilance study was conducted using FAERS data from Q1 2004 through Q2 2025. Disproportionality analysis, logistic regression, LASSO regression and time-to-onset analysis were performed to investigate the association between drugs and IGE from different perspectives. Results A total of 731 drugs related to IGE. Six of the top 10 most frequently reported drugs associated with IGE were antidiabetic agents, including five GLP-1RAs: semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, exenatide, and liraglutide. Multi-factor analysis identified female sex, age <63 years, and exposure to any of nine specific drugs—including GLP-1RAs, insulin lispro, sodium oxybate, olmesartan, and esomeprazole—as independent risk factors for drug-related IGE. The model achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.739, indicating good discriminatory capability. Time-to-onset analysis revealed an early-failure pattern for all nine drugs. Conclusion Our study shows that female sex, younger age, and use of specific medications are associated with an increased risk of drug-related IGE. These findings may provide valuable evidence to support the early recognition of drug-related IGE and for optimizing anaesthetic plans and perioperative personalized fasting strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: