Scholarlink

Background and objective <p>Despite 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.</p> Materials and methods <p>A 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.</p> Results <p>Five 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), <i>P</i> = 0.08], intra/postoperative aspiration (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.20, 4.96], <i>P</i> = 1.00), postprocedural pneumonia (RR 0.60, 95% CI [0.14, 2.51], <i>P</i> = 0.49), emergency endotracheal intubation (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.10, 9.51], <i>P</i> = 1.00), nausea/vomiting (RR 0.89, 95% CI [0.46, 1.76], <i>P</i> = 0.75), anti-emetic use (RR 0.49, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03], <i>P</i> = 0.06), hypoglycemia (RR 0.74, 95% CI [0.43, 1.28], <i>P</i> = 0.28), and the need for inotrope/vasopressor therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.81, 1.30], <i>P</i> = 0.82). However, the non-fasting approach significantly decreased the sensation of tiredness/fatigue (SMD − 0.31 with 95% CI [− 0.51, − 0.11], <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>The non-fasting protocol demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and overall satisfaction to the conventional fasting approach.</p> Review registration&#xa0; <p>PROSPERO CRD42024586147.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Non-fasting versus fasting before percutaneous cardiac procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月28日

查看全文
  • Elsayed Balbaa,
  • Ahmed A. Ibrahim,
  • Mohammad Bazzazeh,
  • Shehroze Tabassum,
  • Shrouk Ramadan,
  • Ahmed Farid Gadelmawla,
  • Abdelrahman Elshimy,
  • Obieda Altobaishat,
  • Mohamed Abuelazm

摘要

Background and objective

Despite 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 methods

A 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.

Results

Five 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).

Conclusion

The non-fasting protocol demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and overall satisfaction to the conventional fasting approach.

Review registration 

PROSPERO CRD42024586147.