SynthesisVascular health and risk management2017
Early discharge compared with ordinary discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention - a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and cost.
Synthesis in Vascular health and risk management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Very Early Discharge of Patients with ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2021Article
- Effects of patients' hospital discharge preferences on uptake of clinical decision support.PloS one · 2021Article
- Review
- Safety and cost analysis of early discharge following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome in patients with diabetes mellitus.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Article
- Comparison short time discharge with long time discharge following uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention for Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Observational
- The Impact of Discharge Timing on Readmission Following Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery: a Nationwide Readmission Database Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to summarize the pooled effect of early discharge compared with ordinary discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the composite endpoint of re-infarction, revascularization, stroke, death, and incidence of rehospitalization. We also aimed to compare costs for the two strategies.
methodsThe study was a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials including 2962 patients, followed by trial sequential analysis. An estimation of cost was considered. Follow-up time was 30 days.
resultsFor early discharge, pooled effect for the composite endpoint was relative risk of efficacy (RRe)=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.52-0.81). Rehospitalization had a pooled effect of RRe=1.10, 95% CI (0.88-1.38). Early discharge had an increasing risk of rehospitalization with increasing frequency of hypertension for all populations, except those with stable angina, where a decreasing risk was noted. Advancing age gave increased risk of revascularization. Early discharge had a cost reduction of 655 Euros per patient compared with ordinary discharge.
conclusionThe pooled effect supports the safe use of early discharge after PCI in the treatment of a heterogeneous population of patients with coronary artery disease. There was an increased risk of rehospitalization for all subpopulations, except patients with stable angina. Clinical trials with homogeneous populations of acute coronary syndrome are needed to be conclusive on this issue.
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.