ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2022
Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Virtual Reality on Anxiety, Pain, and Radial Artery Spasm During Transradial Coronary Angiography: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing distal radial access: clinical and anatomical predictors of failure from the multicenter DISTAL registry.Coronary artery disease · 2026Article
- Distal radial access in interventional cardiology: technique, pitfalls and recommendations.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Efficacy and success rate of Distal Radial Artery Access at the Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Intervention at Central Chest Institute of Thailand.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Distal radial access for coronary procedures in an all-comer population: the first 1000 patients in a prospective cohort.REC, interventional cardiologyArticle
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
Introduction: Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. Methods: From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. Results: From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, Conclusions: The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.
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.