ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of radial artery occlusion between traditional radial access and distal radial access for coronary angiography and intervention: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor Embolization Using a Small-Bore Guide via the Distal Radial Artery Approach: Report of Five Consecutive Cases.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
- Clinical comparison of transfemoral vs. distal transradial access for lower extremity arteriography.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The radial approach is now recommended as the default strategy in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication that limits subsequent angiographic procedures through this access. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has been recommended as an alternative access site. Despite lower RAO rates in DRA in some recent clinical trials, concerns remain regarding possible complications and limitations due to the small size of the distal radial artery. Objective: The present study aimed to compare traditional radial access (TRA) and DRA concerning RAO in percutaneous coronary procedures. Methods: In the present prospective cohort study, percutaneous coronary procedures were performed via DRA or TRA in 2 study groups. All consecutive participants underwent DRA from September 2021 to March 2022 and TRA from April 2022 to June 2022. Ultrasonography was performed preprocedurally in the DRA group, and patients with small distal artery diameters (<2 mm) were excluded. The same 6-Fr sheaths and standard air-filled compression devices were used in both groups. The primary endpoint was RAO in ultrasound sonography on the first postprocedural day, and the secondary endpoints were the success rate, access time, angiography time, radial artery spasms, and vascular access complications. Results: A total of 298 patients were assigned to the DRA group and 278 to the TRA group. The RAO rate was significantly higher in the TRA group than in the DRA group (10.1 % vs 0.9 %; Conclusions: DRA was safe and feasible with lower rates of RAO and access site complications than TRA. Thus, it could be used as an alternative approach in percutaneous coronary procedures. However, the trade-off for these advantages of DRA is an increase in cross-over rate, and a decrease in puncture success rate.
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.