ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Fasting before contrast-enhanced CT and the incidence of acute adverse reactions: a single-center randomized clinical trial.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of eliminating the traditional preparatory fasting policy before contrast-enhanced CT on acute adverse reactions and to identify potential risk factors in a Spanish population sample, since many European patients still experience this unnecessary measure in clinical practice.
methodsOutpatients who underwent non-emergency CT to either 6 h of solid food fasting (control group) or an unrestricted consumption of solids (intervention group). Adverse reactions during contrast media administration and up to 30 min afterward were recorded and their incidence was calculated. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, various patient-related and technical factors were evaluated to identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting.
resultsOne thousand one hundred three patients were evaluated, 560 patients in the control group, and 543 patients in the intervention group. Moderate and severe acute adverse reactions were not identified in either group. No statistical difference was found in the overall acute adverse reactions (hypersensitivity and chemotoxicity) incidence between groups (3.21% vs 2.30% p = 0.36). The total incidence of emetic adverse reactions (nausea and vomiting) was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (0.92% vs 2.86% p = 0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that fasting, age, allergies, neurological diseases, and contrast media concentration were independent risk factors for nausea and vomiting.
conclusionUnrestricted food intake did not increase the overall incidence of acute adverse reactions and diminished the incidence of nausea and vomiting.
trial registrationANZCTR, ACTRN12623000071628. Registered 23 January 2023-retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384985&showOriginal=true&isReview=true . CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This randomized clinical trial carried out in adults undergoing a non-emergent CT scan demonstrates that fasting as a preparation before a contrast-enhanced CT scan should be discontinued and reserved only for certain specific imaging tests. KEY POINTS: Despite low osmolar CT contrast media becoming ubiquitous, preparatory fasting is still widely practiced. The overall incidence of acute adverse reactions was unchanged after abolishing preparative fasting. Traditional preparatory fasting should be discontinued and reserved only for certain specific imaging tests.
Indexed as
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.