ArticleCureus2024
Distal Transradial Access in the Anatomical Snuffbox for Interventional Coronary Procedures: Analysis of Access Site Pain and Complications.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Subcutaneous Puncture Site Cocktails for Distal Transradial Cerebral Angiography in Improving Puncture Success and Cannulation-Induced Vasospasm: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA novel arterial access distally on the radial artery through the anatomical snuffbox has been recently described for coronary interventional procedures. However, there is insufficient data comparing the advantages and limitations of distal transradial access (dTRA), conventional transradial access (TRA), and transfemoral access (TFA). The aim of this study was to compare the three access sites regarding local pain and complications during or after coronary interventional procedures.
methodsThis prospective observational single-center study included 211 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention, divided into three groups: dTRA (n=69), TRA (n=71), and TFA (n=71). The access site was chosen at the discretion of three operators. We administered a questionnaire to all patients, addressing local pain or discomfort during or after the procedure and the occurrence of possible complications such as distal pallor, local bleeding, and purple color on the access site.
resultsPain on the access site during the procedure was reported more frequently in the TRA group (dTRA 15.9% vs. TRA 32.4% vs. TFA 15.5%). There were no differences in the occurrence of local pain after the procedure in all three groups (29.6% in the dTRA group, 28.2% in the TRA group, and 26.8% in the TFA group). Pain intensity, when it occurred, was higher in the dTRA group (dTRA 5.8 vs. TRA 4.8 vs. TFA 4.6 on a 1-10 scale), as was its duration (dTRA 13.7 vs. TRA 7.6 vs. TFA 8.2 days). Only two local bleeding events were reported, both in the TFA group. No major complications were recorded.
conclusionThe occurrence of local pain on the puncture site after coronary interventional procedures did not differ among the three groups. The dTRA group presented a lower incidence of pain during the procedure when compared to TRA and a lower incidence of purple color when compared to TFA. However, pain intensity and duration were higher in the dTRA group when pain was reported. Using dTRA for coronary procedures is a feasible and safe strategy in selected cases.
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.