ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparison of distal and conventional transradial access on procedure duration and radiation exposure in carotid artery stenting.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the effects of distal transradial access (dTRA) compared to conventional transradial access (cTRA) on procedure duration and radiation exposure among patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.
methodsThe study included 131 patients who underwent cerebrovascular interventional diagnosis and treatment in the Department of Cerebrovascular Diseases at Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, from January 2022 to April 2024. Patients were categorized into dTRA and cTRA groups based on the puncture site. Clinical and laboratory data, operation duration, and the incidence of puncture-related complications and perioperative adverse events were recorded. Procedure duration and radiation exposure levels were then compared between the two groups.
resultsThe dTRA group comprised 47 patients and the cTRA group comprised 84 patients. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of risk factors and laboratory parameters (all P > 0.05). Procedure-related comparisons between the dTRA and cTRA groups showed that the operation time for carotid artery stenting was (51.47 ± 10.51) minutes and (50.08 ± 11.37) minutes, respectively; the fluoroscopy time was (20.48 ± 5.55) minutes and (20.96 ± 9.24) minutes, respectively; and the radiation exposure dose was (573.60 ± 185.17) mGy and (567.09 ± 329.96) mGy, respectively. None of these differences were statistically significant (all P > 0.05).
conclusionThe results suggest that dTRA is comparable to cTRA in terms of procedure duration and radiation exposure during carotid artery stenting.
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.