Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 30-Day Outcomes of the DIPRA Study.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 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
- Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Artery Access versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025Pooled it
- Distal versus conventional radial artery catheterization for hemodynamic monitoring in intensive care setting: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Distal versus proximal transradial access and radial artery occlusion: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Feasibility and safety of the distal radial access for vascular access interventional therapy.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Feasibility of percutaneous coronary intervention using a 7-French thin-walled sheath via the distal radial access.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Endovascular Thrombectomy for Radial Artery Occlusion in Neuro-Interventional Procedures: A Report of Two Cases.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Proximal radial artery (pRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (dRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the radial artery, but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. Methods and Results In the DIPRA (Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention) study, a single-center trial, 300 patients were randomized 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through dRA or pRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 30 days was a composite of the QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb forefinger pinch test. Secondary end points included access feasibility and complications; 254 of 300 patients completed follow-up at 30 days; of these, 128 were randomized to dRA and 126 to pRA with balanced demographic and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar rates of access site bleeding (dRA 0% versus pRA 1.4%;
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.