ArticleYonsei medical journal2017
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Right and Left Radial Artery Approaches from the Korean Transradial Coronary Intervention Registry.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Feasibility and Safety of the Left Distal Radial Approach in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Left Snuffbox Approach.Korean circulation journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransradial intervention (TRI) shows anatomical and technical differences between the right radial approach (RRA) and left radial approach (LRA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety using LRA, compared with RRA. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1653 consecutive patients who underwent TRI from November 2004 to October 2010 were enrolled in the Korean multicenter TRI registry. The patients were divided into two groups: the RRA group (n=792 patients) and the LRA group (n=861 patients). To adjust for any potential confounders, propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed (C-statistic: 0.726). After PSM, a total of 1100 patients were enrolled for analysis.
resultsAfter PSM, the RRA group exhibited a larger contrast volume (259.3±119.6 mL vs. 227.0±90.7 mL, p<0.001), a longer fluoroscopic time (22.5±28.0 minutes vs. 17.1±12.6 minutes) and higher access site change (12.3% vs. 1.0%, p<0.001) than the LRA group. Meanwhile, the LRA group showed a shorter procedure time (49.2±30.4 minutes vs. 55.4±28.7 minutes, p=0.003) than the RRA group. After PSM, in-hospital complications and 12-month cumulative clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups.
conclusionOf the two TRI methods, LRA was associated with better procedural efficacy, including shorter procedural time, smaller contrast volume, and less access site change than RRA. However, both methods showed similar 12-month cumulative clinical outcomes. Therefore, LRA was deemed superior to RRA in terms of procedural feasibility without a significant difference in clinical outcomes.
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.