Key result
Fasting before cardiac catheterization shows no benefit over non-fasting for adverse events.
Why the study?
Does a non-fasting protocol improve patient satisfaction without increasing adverse events compared to a fasting protocol in patients undergoing elective cardiac catheterization?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,147)
Does a non-fasting protocol improve patient satisfaction without increasing adverse events compared to a fasting protocol in patients undergoing elective cardiac catheterization?
Non-fasting prior to elective cardiac catheterization appears as safe as traditional fasting protocols and may improve patient satisfaction.
Background Fasting prior to elective or non-urgent coronary angiography is commonly recommended to reduce the risk of adverse events, such as aspiration pneumonia. However, advancements in cardiac catheterization techniques and the use of mild sedation have led to questions about the necessity of this practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of fasting versus non-fasting protocols on patient outcomes and satisfaction. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials comparing fasting and non-fasting states before cardiac catheterization. Eight randomized trials, including a total of 3147 patients, were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, including pneumonia, hypoglycemia, and nausea/vomiting. Secondary outcomes included individual adverse events and patient satisfaction. Results No significant difference was found in the incidence of composite adverse events between fasting and non-fasting groups (4.9% vs. 4.5%, OR, 1.07, 95%CI, 0.76, 1.50, p=0.69). The incidence of hypoglycemia, pneumonia, and nausea/vomiting did not differ significantly between groups. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in non-fasting protocols in four out of eight studies. Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that fasting prior to elective coronary angiography does not significantly reduce adverse events but may reduce patient satisfaction. These findings support reconsidering the necessity of fasting protocols in this context, although further studies are warranted to confirm these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salihu et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Elective or non-urgent coronary angiography (n=3,147). Fasting vs. Non-fasting was evaluated on Composite of adverse events, including pneumonia, hypoglycemia, and nausea/vomiting (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76-1.50, p=0.69). Fasting prior to cardiac catheterization did not significantly reduce composite adverse events compared to non-fasting protocols (4.9% vs. 4.5%; OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.76-1.50; p=0.69).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: