Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33044111›Full record

ArticleJournal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists2021

Distal Radial Artery Access for Superficial Femoral Artery Interventions.

Zoltán Ruzsa, Ádám Csavajda, Balázs Nemes, Mónika Deák, Péter Sótonyi, Olivier F Bertrand, Béla Merkely

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zoltán RuzsaHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2474-5723
Ádám CsavajdaCardiology Division, Invasive Cardiology, Bács-Kiskun County Hospital, Kecskemét, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7184-7853
Balázs NemesHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Mónika DeákCardiology Division, Invasive Cardiology, Bács-Kiskun County Hospital, Kecskemét, Hungary.
Péter SótonyiHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Olivier F BertrandQuebec Heart-Lung Institute, University Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Béla MerkelyHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Semmelweis University · HUBács-Kiskun Megyei Kórház · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the acute success and complication rates of distal radial (DR) vs proximal radial (PR) artery access for superficial femoral artery (SFA) interventions. MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween 2016 and 2019, 195 consecutive patients with symptomatic SFA stenosis were treated via DR (n=38) or PR (n=157) access using a sheathless guide. Secondary access was achieved through the pedal artery when necessary. The main outcomes were technical success, major adverse events (MAEs), and access site complications. Secondary outcomes were treatment success, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, procedure time, and crossover rate to another puncture site.

resultsOverall technical success was achieved in 188 patients (96.4%): 37 of 38 patients (97.3%) in the DR group and 151 of 157 patients (96.2%) in the PR group (p=0.9). Dual (transradial and transpedal) access was used in 14 patients (36.8%) in the DR group and 28 patients (18.9%) in the PR group (p<0.01). Chronic total occlusions were recanalized in 25 of 26 DR patients (96.1%) and in 79 of 81 PR patients (92.6%) (p=0.57). The crossover rate to femoral access was 0% in the DR group vs 3.2% in the PR group (p=0.59). Stents were implanted in the SFA in 15 DR patients (39.4%) and in 39 patients (24.8%) in the PR group (p=0.1). The contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and procedure time were not statistically different between the DR and PR groups, nor were the rates of access site complications (2.6% and 7.0%, respectively). The cumulative incidences of MAE at 6 months in the DR and PR groups were 15.7% vs 14.6%, respectively (p=0.8).

conclusionSFA interventions can be safely and effectively performed using PR or DR access with acceptable morbidity and a high technical success rate. DR access is associated with few access site complications.

Indexed as

Femoral ArteryPeripheral Arterial DiseaseHumansRadial ArteryStentsTreatment Outcomeangioplastyfemoropopliteal segmentstentsuperficial femoral arterytranspedal approachtransradial approachvascular access

Identifiers

PMID33044111
PMCPMC8044606
OpenAlexW3091769376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.