ReviewEuropean cardiology2025
Same-day Discharge Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Review in European cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Same-Day Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Who, When, and How?Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over the past decade, significant advancements in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have substantially reduced periprocedural complications. These developments have also made same-day discharge (SDD) following PCI increasingly feasible. This study aims to provide the most up-to-date evidence on the safety of SDD through a synthesis of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for RCTs comparing the safety of SDD versus overnight stay (ONS) following PCI. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model. Results: A total of 14 RCTs comprising 3,215 patients (1,608 in the SDD group and 1,607 in the ONS group), primarily with chronic coronary syndrome or low-risk acute coronary syndrome, were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that SDD is as safe as ONS, as indicated by the comparable risks of adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular events (pooled RR 0.76; 95% CI [0.46-1.27]), major bleeding (pooled RR 1.29; 95% CI [0.50-3.37]), vascular complications related to the access site (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI [0.78-1.45]), rehospitalisation (pooled RR 1.15; 95% CI [0.79-1.68]) and unplanned hospital visits (pooled RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.73-1.42]) within 30 days post-PCI. The results remained robust, regardless of access site, timing of discharge or clinical presentation (all p for interaction >0.05). Conclusion: This up-to-date meta-analysis provides strong evidence supporting the safety of SDD compared with ONS after PCI. Further well-designed RCTs involving high-risk acute coronary syndrome patients are warranted to further clarify the safety of the SDD strategy in this population.
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.