ArticleARYA atherosclerosis2020
Trans-snuff box approach as a new access site for coronary angiography and angioplasty versus trans-radial approach in terms of feasibility, safety, and complications.
Article in ARYA atherosclerosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of distal transradial access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Distal Transradial Access in Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical comparison of transfemoral vs. distal transradial access for lower extremity arteriography.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe feasibility and safety of coronary angiography (CAG) and angioplasty via trans-snuffbox approach (TSA) is still concerned; therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess possible complications occurring after TSA versus trans-radial approach (TRA).
methodsThis prospective observational study was undertaken from June 2017 till March 2018. Individuals aged at least 18 years who were admitted for CAG through upper extremity were eligible and categorized to TSA (n = 70) and TRA (n = 56) groups. Occurrence of complications including hematoma, pain or paresthesia, pseudoaneurysm formation, arterial obstruction, limb ischemia, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and emergency vessel revascularization was assessed after the procedure and in two separate visits three and six months afterwards.
resultsThe mean age of participants in TSA and TRA groups was 55.1 ± 9.7 and 56.5 ± 9.6 years, respectively (P = 0.415). Men were the dominant group in both approaches [TSA: 44 (62.8%), TRA: 36 (64.3%), P = 0.868]. Success rates in TSA and TRA were 88.6% and 94.6%, respectively (P = 0.230). Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was reported in two (3.2%) and one (1.8%) case in TRA and TSA, respectively (P = 0.653). MACE incidence was not significantly different in TSA compared with TRA group (1.8% vs. 4.8%, respectively, P = 0.389). There was no major procedural complication, neither in TSA nor in TRA category.
conclusionOur results revealed that TSA could be classified as an alternative modality to other common CAG and angioplasty methods due to its high safety rate and lower complications. Several comprehensive population-based studies are necessary for confirming these findings.
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.