SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Fasting Before Cardiac Catheterization: Still Necessary? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- NPO at midnight: A historical rule in need of evidence-based reform.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFasting before elective or nonurgent coronary angiography is commonly recommended to reduce the risk of adverse events, such as aspiration pneumonia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of fasting versus nonfasting protocols on patient outcomes and satisfaction.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials comparing fasting and nonfasting states before cardiac catheterization. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events including pneumonia, hypoglycemia, and nausea/vomiting. Secondary outcomes included individual adverse events and patient satisfaction. For each binary outcome we estimated crude event probabilities for each treatment arm. Next, we pooled study-specific results in meta-analyses using odds ratio (OR) and risk difference as effect measures for binary outcomes and standardized mean difference for satisfaction.
resultsWe identified 8 randomized clinical trials, including a total of 3147 patients. Our meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the incidence of composite adverse events between fasting and nonfasting groups in ORs (OR, 1.08, [95% CI, 0.78-1.51], where OR<1 favors fasting). The crude event probabilities were 4.9% and 4.4% for fasting and nonfasting groups respectively, with an estimated risk difference =0.4% (-1.1% to 1.8%), where risk difference <0 favors fasting. Patient satisfaction was found higher in nonfasting protocols, standardized mean difference 0.62 (0.11-1.13).
conclusionOur meta-analysis found no evidence that fasting before elective coronary angiography reduces adverse events. However, we found evidence that fasting reduces patient satisfaction. These findings question the necessity of fasting protocols in this context. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024595465; Unique identifier: CRD42024595465.
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.