SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CORRECT RADIAL RCT. CORonaRy angiography and intErventions via distal vs proximal transradial aCcess-a randomized Trial of different RADIAL puncture sites.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Trial
- Rebuttal to: "Comment on the CORRECT RADIAL trial: considerations on methodology and interpretation." (CRCD-D-26-00099).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Multivariate analysis and individualized nomogram construction for predicting radial artery occlusion risk after transradial intervention.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Distal Radial Access: A 'Less Is More' Approach for High Bleeding Risk PCI.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Bilateral distal transradial access for subclavian artery stenosis intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal radial access (DRA) represents a promising alternative to conventional proximal radial access (PRA) for coronary angiography. Substantial advantages regarding safety and efficacy have been suggested for DRA, but the ideal access route remains controversial.
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare safety, efficacy and feasibility of DRA to PRA.
methodsNational Library of Medicine PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials and registry studies comparing DRA and PRA that were published between January 1, 2017 and April, 2024. Primary endpoint was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Secondary endpoints were access failure, access time, procedure time, arterial spasm, hematoma, and hemostasis time. Data extraction was performed by two independent investigators. Relative risks were aggregated using a random effects model. We applied meta-analytic regression to assess study characteristic variables as possible moderators of the study effects.
results44 studies with a total of 21,081 patients were included. We found a significantly lower rate of RAO after DRA (DRA 1.28%, PRA 4.76%, p < .001) with a 2.92 times lower risk compared to the proximal approach (Log Risk Ratio = -1.07, p < .001). Conversely, the risk for access failure was 2.42 times higher for DRA compared to PRA (Log Risk Ratio = 0.88, p < .001).
conclusionIn this largest meta-analysis to date, we were able to show that rates of RAO are reduced with DRA compared to conventional PRA. This suggests DRA is a safe alternative to PRA.
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.