BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of post-treatment nursing intervention (NI) with routine nursing care (RC) of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge database, and other databases were used to comprehensively evaluate post-treatment NI versus RC for patients with CVD. Review Manager 5.0 was used to assess the impact of the results in the selected articles. Forest map analysis, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis were performed on the collected data. RESULTS: In total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The systolic blood pressure in the RC group was higher than that in the NI group (MD =-3.72, 95% CI: -4.64 to -2.80, P<0.00001, I2=92%). The diastolic blood pressure in the NI group was lower than that in the RC group (MD =-5.36, 95% CI: -6.55 to -4.16, P<0.00001, I2=96%). There was a significant difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the NI group and the RC group (MD =-5.00, 95% CI: -9.47 to -0.52, P=0.03, I2=88%). The total cholesterol in the NI group was lower than that in the RC group (MD =-9.99, 95% CI: -14.52 to -5.45, P<0.0001, I2=85%). The triglyceride value of the NI group was lower than that of the RC group, with significant heterogeneity (MD =-24.24, 95% CI: -26.25 to -22.23, P<0.0001, I2=96%). A sensitivity analysis and funnel plot indicated that the study was reliable and publication bias was limited. DISCUSSION: The results showed that the efficacy and safety of NI were superior to RC after treatment of CVD. NI is worth popularizing.