ArticlePloS one2021
Comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for transcatheter arterial embolization of iatrogenic renal hemorrhage.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Safety of Transradial Access for Renal Artery Embolization: A Single Center Prospective Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating outcomes of renal angioembolization: A retrospective study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are few reports of renal artery embolization (RAE) via transradial access (TRA) for renal hemorrhage, and none have compared outcomes of RAE via TRA and transfemoral access (TFA). The objective was to compare technical and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RAE via TRA or TFA for iatrogenic renal hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 45 RAE procedures (16 TRA and 29 TFA) for iatrogenic renal hemorrhage in 43 patients performed at a tertiary referral center between October 2018 and December 2020. Information regarding underlying diseases, coagulation status, angiographic and embolization procedure details, technical and clinical successes, and complications were retrospectively evaluated.
resultsThere were no differences in demographics, underlying diseases, updated Charlson comorbidity scores, angiographic findings, and volume of contrast material between the TRA and TFA groups. By contrast, prothrombin time and international normalized ratio were significantly lower in the TRA than in the TFA group. Embolic materials differed significantly in the two groups. Procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, digital subtraction angiography number, and dose area product were slightly lower in the TRA than in the TFA group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Technical and clinical success rates in the TRA and TFA groups were 100% and 96.6%, and 100% and 96.6%, respectively. No patient in either group experienced procedure-related complications during a 4 week follow-up period.
conclusionRAE via TRA in the management of iatrogenic renal hemorrhage was safe and feasible, with similar procedure duration and radiation exposure to RAE via TFA. TRA may be an acceptable alternative to TFA in these patients.
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.