Fasting Versus Non-fasting Protocols Before Cardiac Catheterization Procedures: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Clinical Trials
• Patient Safety

Background:

• Traditional cardiac catheterization protocols mandate fasting.
• Emerging evidence suggests liberalizing oral intake may enhance patient experience without compromising safety.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the safety and outcomes of fasting versus nonfasting protocols before cardiac catheterization procedures.
• To evaluate the impact of oral intake liberalization on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Main Methods:

• A systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 clinical trials involving 3646 patients.
• Searched PubMed and Cochrane Library for trials comparing fasting and nonfasting protocols.
• Analyzed outcomes including mortality, aspiration, nausea/vomiting, and contrast-induced nephropathy.

Main Results:

• No significant differences in mortality, aspiration, nausea/vomiting, or other adverse events were observed between fasting and nonfasting groups.
• Patient satisfaction was generally higher in the nonfasting group, though quantitative synthesis was limited.
• Eight studies exhibited low risk of bias or some concerns, indicating moderate to high study quality.

Conclusions:

• Liberalizing oral intake prior to cardiac catheterization is as safe as traditional fasting.
• Findings support the development of standardized, evidence-based protocols for oral intake in cardiac catheterization.
• Updated guidelines can improve patient satisfaction and streamline procedural care.