ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2022
Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transradial versus transfemoral access in carotid artery stenting: A meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Pooled it
- Transradial artery access for carotid artery stenting: A pooled analysis.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Radial or Femoral Access for Carotid Stenting.Clinical neuroradiology · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of a Computer-Controlled Device for Transradial Cerebral Angiography: A Prospective Pilot Study.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2026Article
- Transradial Approach for Neurovascular Interventions : A Literature Review.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2025Article
- Ultrasonographic Characterizations of Radial Artery for Transradial Approach in the Saudi Population: A Pilot Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Transradial Access Versus Transfemoral Approach for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Stenosis: In-Hospital Clinical Outcomes at a Single Neurovascular Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe multicenter prospective CREST-2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS.
objectiveTo determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach.
methodsPatients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access-related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity-score matched logistic regression.
resultsThe mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access-related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42).
conclusionWe found no significant differences in rates of major access-related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.