ArticleJournal of neuroendovascular therapy2026
Feasibility and Safety of a Computer-Controlled Device for Transradial Cerebral Angiography: A Prospective Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of neuroendovascular therapy, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a computer-controlled local anesthetic delivery device during transradial cerebral angiography and to descriptively assess procedural pain and hemodynamic changes in an initial series of patients. Methods: In this prospective pilot study, 10 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective diagnostic cerebral angiography via the radial artery received local anesthesia with a computer-controlled injection device using 1 mL of 3% mepivacaine delivered through a 33-G needle. The primary outcome of this study was feasibility, defined as successful delivery of local anesthesia and completion of transradial access without device-related complications or the need to convert to manual injection. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity assessed using a 0-100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) at predefined procedural steps, hemodynamic changes before and after sheath insertion, and access-site adverse events such as vasospasm or bleeding. Blood pressure was compared between baseline (immediately before local anesthesia) and after sheath insertion. Results: All 10 procedures were successfully completed using the computer-controlled device without device malfunction, conversion to manual injection, or access failure. The first puncture attempt was successful in all patients. The median VAS score following local anesthesia was 18 [13-22] mm, following arterial puncture was 3 [2-4.75] mm, and following sheath insertion was 7.5 [3-10] mm. There was no significant difference in median systolic blood pressure before local anesthesia and after sheath insertion (160.7 ± 30.6 vs. 160.1 ± 27.6 mmHg; p = 0.84), and diastolic blood pressure also did not change significantly (80.5 ± 6.2 vs. 77.5 ± 10.0 mmHg; p = 0.16). No clinically evident radial artery spasm or hemorrhagic access-site complications occurred. Conclusion: In this pilot study, computer-controlled local anesthesia during transradial cerebral angiography was feasible and appeared safe in a small cohort of patients. Pain-related findings should be interpreted as descriptive and hypothesis-generating, and further controlled studies are required to evaluate efficacy.
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.