ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2023
Randomized controlled trial of liberal vs. standard fasting instructions in percutaneous cardiac procedures.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04079543 (Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberalized NPO Status to Improve Patient Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Procedures in the Cardiac Catheterization Lab), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberalized NPO Status to Improve Patient Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Procedures in the Cardiac Catheterization Lab
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fasting Before Cardiac Catheterization: Still Necessary? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Fasting Versus Non-fasting Protocols Before Cardiac Catheterization Procedures: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- NPO at midnight: A historical rule in need of evidence-based reform.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Fasting Guidelines for Invasive Cardiac Procedures: Let Them Eat Cake!Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Re-evaluating Fasting Guidelines for Invasive Cardiac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Non-fasting versus fasting before percutaneous cardiac procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- A Randomized Trial of Cardiac Catheterization With Fasting Versus Liberal Oral Intake: The CALORI Trial.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Liberal Preoperative Fasting in Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Scoping Review Protocol.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPre-procedural fasting to reduce aspiration risk is usual care prior to surgery requiring anesthesia. Prolonged fasting, however, can result in dehydration and may adversely affect patient experience and outcomes. Previous studies suggest that providing a supplemental beverage to patients undergoing cardiac and a variety of other surgical procedures improves patients' subjective assessment of thirst and hunger and potentially decreases the need for inotrope and vasopressor therapy. Less is known, however, about the effects of ad libitum clear liquids up to 2 h prior to surgery.
methodsAdult patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or arrhythmia ablation were randomized (1:1) to ad libitum clear liquids up to 2 h prior to their procedure vs. nil per os (NPO) after midnight (control group, usual care). The primary endpoint was a composite satisfaction score that included patient-reported thirst, hunger, headache, nausea, lightheadedness, and anxiousness prior to surgery. The incidence of case-delay was recorded. Intraoperative vasopressor administration, changes in creatinine, anti-emetic use, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were recorded. Safety endpoints including aspiration were assessed.
resultsA total of 200 patients were randomized and 181 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 92% of patients were ASA class III or IV and 23% of patients had NYHA class III or IV symptoms. Groups were well balanced with no significant differences in age, sex or baseline cardiac or renal disease. The composite satisfaction score (primary endpoint) was not significantly different between groups (Ad libitum median = 12, IQR = [6, 17], vs Standard NPO median = 10, IQR = [5, 15], [95% CI = [-1, 4]). No significant differences between the two groups were observed in any of the individual survey questions (thirst, hunger, headache, nausea, lightheadedness, anxiousness). No significant differences between groups were observed for intra-operative vasopressor use, changes in creatinine, rescue anti-emetic use or hospital LOS. There were no case delays attributed to the intervention. There were no cases of suspected aspiration.
conclusionNo adverse events or case delays were observed in the ad libitum clears group. No significant benefit, however, was observed in patient satisfaction or any of the pre-specified secondary endpoints in patients randomized to ad libitum clear liquids up to 2 h prior to their procedure.
trial registrationNCT04079543.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.