First, our primary goal was to assess the success of implementation, measured as change in fasting duration. We agree that a smaller sample size would have been sufficient to estimate this change. However, sustainable implementation of a (new) policy is difficult. 1 Because the "fasting paradigm" is ingrained into health care, we aimed to show that our strategy resulted in a lasting change. Thanks to our extensive implementation period, we were able to prove a sustainable change. We also agree that our study was still underpowered to assess the incidence of regurgitation or aspiration and addressed this limitation in the Discussion. 2 Second, we did not adjust the outcome postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for differences in intraoperatively administered antiemetics as we considered that both differences in PONV incidence and in antiemetics administration were small.Third, regarding patient understanding of a change in policy, we did not tell patients who followed the standard policy of the upcoming change, so it is unlikely that these patients were biased in their answer to the thirst question. Patients in the liberal policy were told that we allowed drinking until surgery. Some patients may have known this was a change if they had undergone surgery before, but most did not or did not know we were studying the change, making a bias unlikely. We tell patients to adhere to fasting instructions to prevent aspiration, but as previous evidence had suggested a similar aspiration risk, we did not change the information about the aspiration risk in the fasting instructions.Fourth, the incidence of aspiration pneumonia in our study was 1.8 and 0.7 in 10 000 patients following the liberal and standard policy, respectively. It is debatable what incidence of aspiration pneumonia would be acceptable compared with the benefits of well-being. At least we can conclude that perioperative aspiration pneumonia is rare. If future research shows that the true incidence is around 2 in 10 000 patients scheduled for elective and semiurgent surgery, we would consider that an acceptable risk, but others may not. This is also a subject of debate in pediatric anesthesia because pediatric guidelines for fluid fasting changed in Europe. 3,4 Regarding the outcome evaluation, all cases of aspiration and pneumonia were evaluated by 2 independent assessors.Finally, it indeed is often assumed that the risk of aspiration (pneumonia) resulting from regurgitation is increased with using a laryngeal mask airway compared with a cuffed tube. In our study, 16 patients regurgitated with a laryngeal mask in place, resulting in 2 aspirations, and 39 had a tube in place, resulting in 3 aspirations. Other patients with regurgitation either received procedural sedation or regurgitated during induction, ie, before the airway was secured, or after extubation.