SynthesisCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2012
Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention.
Synthesis in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Intracranial AneurysmsFrontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2016Pooled it
- Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 30-Day Outcomes of the DIPRA Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Trial
- Randomized Trial of Compression Duration After Transradial Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Trial
- Sex- and race/ethnic differences in short- and long-term mortality after hospitalization for incident acute myocardial infarction.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and the Emerging Role of Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Radial artery access in interventional cardiology: a review of current practices.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Review
- Radial Artery Occlusion Recanalization via the Distal Radial Approach Followed by Vertebral Artery Stent Placement.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cost comparison of liquid versus particulate embolic agents for middle meningeal artery embolization in chronic subdural hematoma.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Rate of periprocedural stroke in diagnostic cerebral angiograms comparing transradial versus transfemoral access.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024Article
- TRUST Technique for Neurointervention: A Promising Alternative for Complex Cases.Current neurovascular research · 2024Article
- Is single-catheter technique for coronary angiography an optimal tool for beginners in interventional cardiology?-randomized controlled study TRACT 2: Transradial Coronary Angiography Trial 2.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Feasibility and Safety of the Routine Distal Transradial Approach in the Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Procedures: The ANTARES Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Transradial Access for Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE) in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison with Transfemoral Access.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Trends in Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Mortality Following Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2008 to 2018.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Transradial Access for Neurointervention Procedures in Patients With Radial Artery Occlusion.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Cost Comparison: Evaluating Transfemoral and Transradial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Arch and Great Vessel Geometry From a Transradial Angiographic Approach.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundRadial artery access for coronary angiography and interventions has been promoted for reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications compared with femoral access, yet it can take longer to perform and is not always successful, leading to concerns about its cost. We report a cost-benefit analysis of radial catheterization based on results from a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. METHODS AND
resultsThe systematic review added 5 additional randomized controlled trials to a prior review, for a total of 14 studies. Meta-analyses, following Cochrane procedures, suggested that radial catheterization significantly increased catheterization failure (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 2.69-8.98), but reduced major complications (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.42), major bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), and hematoma (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48) compared with femoral catheterization. It added approximately 1.4 minutes to procedure time (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.97) and reduced hemostasis time by approximately 13 minutes (95% CI, -2.30 to -23.90). There were no differences in procedure success rates or major adverse cardiovascular events. A stochastic simulation model of per-case costs took into account procedure and hemostasis time, costs of repeating the catheterization at the alternate site if the first catheterization failed, and the inpatient hospital costs associated with complications from the procedure. Using base-case estimates based on our meta-analysis results, we found the radial approach cost $275 (95% CI, -$374 to -$183) less per patient from the hospital perspective. Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization under all conditions tested.
conclusionsRadial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization in our cost-benefit analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.