ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topical Nitroglycerin for Radial Access Optimization: Supporting Vascular Access in Patients at Risk for Acute Heart Failure.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
- Radial Versus Femoral Access for Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: Insights From a Tertiary Academic Center in Johannesburg.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Radial access for peripheral intervention: differences in comfort and care.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Predictors of bleeding-related in-hospital complications after coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center retrospective cohort study in Iran.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
- Effect of TR Band™ radial artery compression device-screw and air types on bleeding severity after radial arterial line removal in open-heart surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Radial artery access in interventional cardiology: a review of current practices.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Review
- Pre-distance assessment from radial artery to lower extremity arterial lesion.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Retrospective Analysis of the Thai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry: Impacts of Center Volume and Operator Experience on Outcomes.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Electrophysiological Assessment of Paresthesia in Patients Following Radial Angiography: A Prospective Study.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Rota-Lithotripsy as a Novel Bail-Out Strategy for Highly Calcified Coronary Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Recent Evidence on Advances in PCI Treatment for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access (dTRA) in Patients with Low Body Mass Index.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Bivalirudin Presents a Favorable Safety Profile Regarding Adverse Drug Reactions, Thrombocytopenia, and Bleeding in Chinese Patients With High Bleeding Risk Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prospective, Multi-Center, Intensive Monitoring Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of Distal Radial, Proximal Radial, and Femoral Access in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- The Effects of Local Heating on Facilitating Radial Angiography: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIn patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.
resultsCompared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88;
conclusionsRadial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access.
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.