ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Safety and efficacy of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox: a single-centre prospective cohort study using a propensity score method.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Prevalence of Distal Radial Artery Occlusion (DRAO) in Patients Undergoing Cardiovascular Catheterization Via Distal Radial Access (DRA)
Analysis of the Inner Diameter of the Distal Radial Artery and the Influencing Factors in Chinese Patients
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distal versus conventional transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Pooled 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
- Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2024Trial
- The important role of preoperative ultrasound in the efficacy and safety of coronary intervention via distal transradial access.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of arterial blood gas analysis via distal radial artery in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Clinical comparison of transfemoral vs. distal transradial access for lower extremity arteriography.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Safety and feasibility of a 7F thin-walled sheathFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access (dTRA) in Patients with Low Body Mass Index.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the safety and efficacy of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via distal transradial artery access (d-TRA).
methodsFor this single-centre prospective cohort study, a total of 1066 patients who underwent CAG or PCI procedures from September 2019 to November 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: the d-TRA group (346) and the conventional transradial artery access (c-TRA) group (720) based on access site. A total of 342 pairs of patients were successfully matched using propensity score matching (PSM) for subsequent analysis.
resultsNo significant differences in puncture success rate, procedural method, procedural time, sheath size, contrast dosage or fluoroscopy time were noted between the two groups. The puncture time in the d-TRA group was longer than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the procedure success rate was lower than that in the c-TRA group (90.94% vs. 96.49%, P = 0.01). The haemostasis time in the d-TRA group was shorter than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01). In addition, the prevalence of bleeding and haematoma in the d-TRA group was lower than that in the c-TRA group (1.75% vs. 7.31%, P < 0.01; 0.58% vs. 3.22%, P = 0.01, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of numbness was noted between the two groups. No other complications were found in two groups.
conclusiond-TRA is as safe and effective as c-TRA for CAG and PCI. It has the advantages of improved comfort and fewer complications. Trail registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900026519.
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.