Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26717360›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Clinical and Procedural Outcomes of 5-French versus 6-French Sheaths in Transradial Coronary Interventions.

Alberto Polimeni, Francesco Passafaro, Salvatore De Rosa, Sabato Sorrentino, Daniele Torella, Carmen Spaccarotella, Annalisa Mongiardo, Ciro Indolfi

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Procedural Characteristics and Safety of Slender Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Slender Is Better.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Observational
  5. Safety and efficacy of using a large bore guide catheter through a short 8-Fr sheath for transradial neurointerventional procedures.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto PolimeniFrom the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, "Magna Graecia" University (AP, FP, SDR, SS, DT, CS, AM, CI); and URT-CNR, Department of Medicine, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Catanzaro, Italy (CI).
Francesco Passafaro
Salvatore De Rosa
Sabato Sorrentino
Daniele Torella
Carmen Spaccarotella
Annalisa Mongiardo
Ciro Indolfi
National Research Council · ITMagna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The radial artery has been increasingly used for its favorable safety profile. However, no conclusive data are available on the optimal sheath size. In particular, it is seemingly difficult to weight both advantages and disadvantages of narrower versus larger sheaths size. Despite several studies were performed to compare the use of 6-Fr to the smaller 5-Fr sheaths, these were mostly small, single center-studies, yielding various results.We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of all available studies comparing the use of 5-Fr versus 6-Fr sheaths in coronary procedures through the TRA.Studies comparing a 5-Fr versus a 6-Fr sheaths were searched for in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases.Studies were deemed eligible if they only included patients undergoing transradial cardiac catheterization with 5-Fr or 6-Fr system and reported at least one of these parameters: contrast dye volume, procedural success, procedural time, access complications, radial artery occlusion, and bleedings.Odds ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) were respectively used for dichotomous and continuous variables as summary measures. Both the random-effects model and the fixed effect models were used for computation of meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed by means of the Cochrane Q test. Metaregression was calculated using the unrestricted maximal likelihood random effects model.The use of a 5-Fr system is associated with a significant lower contrast medium administration (MD = -22.20 [-36.43 to -7.96], P < 0.01) and significantly reduces bleedings (OR = 0.58 [0.38-0.90], P = 0.02), without compromising procedural success (OR = 0.95 [0.53-1.69], P = 0.86) or procedure length (OR = 0.55 [-2.58 to 3.69], P = 0.73), compared to the 6-Fr system. Despite no significant difference was observed between the groups (OR = 0.88 [0.50-1.56], P = 0.67), at metaregression RAO incidence in the 5-Fr group was increasingly lower as the percentage of women included into the study increased (P = 0.02).Some potentially interesting technical details, such as sheath length, hydrophilic coating, or periprocedural anticoagulation, were not homogeneously reported in individual studies.Results of the present meta-analysis confirm the excellent safety profile of transradial procedures both with 5-Fr and 6-Fr system. A 5-Fr system could be preferred in patients with a higher bleeding propensity or kidney injury.

Indexed as

Cardiac CatheterizationCardiac CathetersCatheterization, PeripheralRadial ArteryCoronary DiseaseEquipment DesignHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26717360
PMCPMC5291601
OpenAlexW2314608053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.