Same‐Day Discharge After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To manage overcrowding and bed shortages in Canadian hospitals, same-day discharge (SDD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a solution to improve resource utilization. However, limited information exists regarding current trends, hospital variation, and safety of SDD PCI in Canada. Methods and Results We evaluated outpatients undergoing elective PCI in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. SDD was defined when patients were discharged on the day of PCI, and non-SDD was defined as those patients who had 1 overnight stay. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause death or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity score was used to account for differences in baseline and clinical characteristics between SDD and non-SDD groups. Among 35 972 patients who underwent elective PCI at 17 PCI centers in Ontario, 10 801 patients (30%) had SDD PCI and 25 121 patients (70%) had non-SDD PCI. Substantial hospital variation for SDD PCI was observed, ranging from 0% to 87% during the study period. In the propensity-weighted cohort, SDD patients had no significant difference in 30-day rates of death or hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (1.3% versus 1.6%; hazard ratio: 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.08]; P=0.17) compared with non-SDD patients. SDD and non-SDD patients also had no significant difference in 30-day rates of mortality or coronary revascularization. Conclusions In this large population-based cohort of elective PCI patients, we demonstrated the safety of SDD PCI. Increased adoption of this strategy could lead to improved bed-flow efficiency and substantial savings for the Canadian healthcare system without comprising outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".