Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Fasting vs. no fasting prior to catheterization laboratory procedures: the SCOFF trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- multicentre
- investigator-initiated
- non-inferiority
- prospective open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE)
- Bayesian analysis
Authors' conclusion
In patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and CIED-related procedures, no fasting was non-inferior and superior to fasting for the primary composite outcome of aspiration pneumonia, hypotension, hyperglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia. Patient satisfaction scores were significantly better with no fasting.
Study context
- Population
- Patients referred for coronary angiography, PCI or cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related procedures with conscious sedation, Australia, 2022–2023
- Participants
- 716 patients
- Comparison
- No fasting vs Fasting
- Fastingn = 358reference
- No fastingn = 358
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Aspiration pneumonia
- Hypotension
- Hyperglycaemia
- Hypoglycaemia (Bayesian approach)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Mean posterior difference in proportions
−5.2 %
95% CI −9.6 to −.9
By group
- Non-inferiority of no fasting (posterior probability)
- >99.5%
- Superiority of no fasting (posterior probability)
- 99.1%
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | posterior mean difference (points) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Patient satisfaction score · CrI; Bayes factor >100 | 4.02 (3.36–4.67) | |
| −20246Difference, points (linear scale) |
Solid food fasting time
Clear liquid fasting time
- Solid food fasting time: Bayes factor >100
- Clear liquid fasting time: Bayes factor >100
New ventilation, new ICU admission, 30-day readmission, mortality and pneumonia
- Secondary outcome events similar
Original publication
Fasting vs. no fasting prior to catheterization laboratory procedures: the SCOFF trial. Eur Heart J. Published 1 September 2024. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae573
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it