Trial reportAnatolian journal of cardiology2022
Comparison of pain severity, satisfaction, and complications of proximal and distal forearm anesthesia in patients undergoing trans-palmar coronary angiography.
Trial report in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTrans-palmar access is a novel, safe, and feasible technique for coronary artery angiography wherein its appropriate anesthetic methods is still concerned. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the pain severity, satisfaction, and possible complications with local ulnar nerve anesthesia through both distal and proximal forearm in patients undergoing trans-palmar coronary angiography.
methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial performed on 60 patients who were candidates for trans-palmar coronary angiography. The patients were randomized into 2 equal groups as proximal and distal approaches (those who received the same dose of subcutaneous lidocaine (2%) in the proximal and distal of forearm, respectively). Pain intensity at different times, duration of anesthesia, patient satisfaction, and occurrence of complications were evaluated.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 59.45±7.09 years, and, of them, 34 (61.8%) were men. Pain severity with the proximal anesthesia approach was significantly higher than that in the distal group at the time of puncture (5.39±0.73 vs. 2.30±0.60, p=0.001). Over time and immediately after the procedure and at discharge, the mean pain severity in the proximal group was significantly less than in the distal group (p<0.050). The proximal group also had a longer duration of anesthesia (67.14±11.58) than the distal group (53.52±8.06) (p=0.001). No differences were observed in terms of patient satisfaction and complications (p>0.050).
conclusionUsing the proximal ulnar nerve anesthesia approach was associated with a delayed onset and longer anesthesia than the distal method.
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.