ArticleEuropean radiology2019
A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operator radiation dose during trans-hepatic arterial chemoembolization: different patients' positions via transradial or transfemoral access.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Trial
- Analysis of Factors Affecting the Technical Difficulties to Pass the Aortic Arch in Left Transradial Access for Visceral Vascular Intervention.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2025Article
- Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions.Journal of interventional medicine · 2023Article
- All that glitters: case presentation and review of radial access complications in neurointervention.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023Article
- The clinical application of transarterial embolization via radial artery in hemorrhagic diseases in obstetrics and gynecology.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for transcatheter arterial embolization of iatrogenic renal hemorrhage.PloS one · 2021Article
- Update on Transradial Access for Percutaneous Transcatheter Visceral Artery Embolization.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Tibial access for supra-inguinal embolization in extremely obese patients.CVIR endovascular · 2020Article
- A Combined Radial and Pedal Access to Treat a Flush Chronic Total Occlusion of the Superficial Femoral Artery in a Critical Limb Ischemia Patient.Open journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2019Article
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
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with transradial access (TRA) for angiographic interventions, and to compare technical success, complication rate and radiation dose of procedures performed with TRA to those performed with transfemoral access (TFA).
methodsA retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing peripheral interventions via TRA or TFA from 2015 to 2017 was performed. The cohort comprised 33 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TRA and 37 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TFA. Outcome measures were technical success, access-related complications, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between patients who had procedures via TRA versus those who had procedures via TFA, including age, sex and body mass index. Technical success was achieved in 41/44 (93.2%) of procedures performed via TRA, compared to 44/44 (100%) of procedures performed via TFA (p = 0.241). There were three access-related complications (6.8%) when TRA was performed, compared to none when TFA was performed (p = 0.241). Fluoroscopy time was longer in procedures performed with TRA compared to those performed with TFA (27.3 vs 20.4, p = 0.033). Dose area product (DAP) did not differ with access site choice (p = 0.186).
conclusionsTRA is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA for a range of peripheral interventions. However, TRA must be performed with prudence as it is not without complications and is technically challenging, leading to longer fluoroscopy time. KEY POINTS: • Transradial access (TRA) is feasible in a variety of peripheral interventions, achieving success in 93.2% of cases. • Access-related complications are comparable between transfemoral access (TFA) and TRA (p = 0.241), but prudence must be taken during TRA as it could be technically challenging. • Procedures performed with TRA tend to have longer fluoroscopy time compared to those performed with TFA (p = 0.033), but the DAPs are comparable (p = 0.186).
Indexed as
Identifiers
29926207What 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.