Trial reportTexas Heart Institute journal2023
Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Radiation Exposure During Coronary Angiography: the Transradial and Transfemoral Approach by EXPERienced Operators in Daily rouTine (EXPERT) Trial.
Trial report in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe transradial approach (TRA) to coronary angiography reduces vascular complications but is associated with greater radiation exposure than the transfemoral approach (TFA). It is unknown whether exposure remains higher when TRA is performed by experienced operators.
methodsPatients were randomly, prospectively assigned to TRA or TFA. The primary end point was patient radiation dose; secondary end points were the physician radiation dose and 30-day major adverse cardiac event rate. Coronary angiography was performed by experienced operators using a standardized protocol.
resultsClinical and procedural characteristics were similar between the TRA (n = 150) and TFA (n = 149) groups, and they had comparable mean (SD) radiation doses for patients (616.51 [252] vs 585.57 [225] mGy; P = .13) and physicians (0.49 [0.3] vs 0.46 [0.29] mSv; P = .32). The mean (SD) fluoroscopy time (3.52 [2.02] vs 3.13 [2.46] min; P = .14) and the mean (SD) dose area product (35,496.5 [15,670] vs 38,313.4 [17,764.9] mGy·cm2; P = .2) did not differ. None of the following factors predicted higher radiation doses: female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.38-1.3]; P = .34), body mass index >25 (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.43-1.6]; P = .76), age >65 years (HR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.89-3.1]; P = .11), severe valve disease (HR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.52-3.5]; P = .68), or previous coronary artery bypass graft (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.8; P = .38).
conclusionTRA for elective coronary angiography is noninferior to TFA when performed by experienced operators.
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.