ReviewPerioperative medicine (London, England)2025
Non-fasting versus fasting before percutaneous cardiac procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Renal Protection at a Metabolic Cost: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Chest tube removal after cardiac surgery in first vs. second post-operative day: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Protamine sulphate for heparin reversal in percutaneous cardiac interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveDespite the absence of scientific evidence, fasting before percutaneous cardiac catheterization is still recommended to minimize complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of non-fasting protocols in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiac procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, WOS, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted until September 2024. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR), while continuous outcomes were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD). PROSPERO ID: CRD42024586147.
resultsFive RCTs with 2034 patients were included. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding patient satisfaction score [SMD - 0.65, 95% CI (- 1.39, 0.09), P = 0.08], intra/postoperative aspiration (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.20, 4.96], P = 1.00), postprocedural pneumonia (RR 0.60, 95% CI [0.14, 2.51], P = 0.49), emergency endotracheal intubation (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.10, 9.51], P = 1.00), nausea/vomiting (RR 0.89, 95% CI [0.46, 1.76], P = 0.75), anti-emetic use (RR 0.49, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03], P = 0.06), hypoglycemia (RR 0.74, 95% CI [0.43, 1.28], P = 0.28), and the need for inotrope/vasopressor therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.81, 1.30], P = 0.82). However, the non-fasting approach significantly decreased the sensation of tiredness/fatigue (SMD - 0.31 with 95% CI [- 0.51, - 0.11], P < 0.001).
conclusionThe non-fasting protocol demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and overall satisfaction to the conventional fasting approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION : PROSPERO CRD42024586147.
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.