ArticleHeart and vessels2025
Assessment of acute radial artery injury after distal transradial access for coronary intervention: an optical coherence tomography study.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2025. 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.
- Incidence, classification, healing patterns, and vascular remodeling of radial artery dissection assessed by OCT.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Radial artery characteristics before and after intra-arterial administration of nitroglycerin and verapamil: an optical coherence tomography study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Structural radial artery modifications following transradial access: Mechanisms, clinical implications, and preventive strategies.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Distal radial access in interventional cardiology: technique, pitfalls and recommendations.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Mapping the distribution of radial artery atherosclerosis by optical coherence tomography.BMC medical imaging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a paucity of data on acute radial artery (RA) injuries using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients undergoing coronary intervention via distal transradial coronary access (dTRA). To evaluate the incidence of acute RA injury following dTRA for coronary intervention using OCT. We retrospectively analyzed 200 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent coronary intervention guided by OCT and RA-OCT after dTRA at our center between June 2021 and November 2022. Total length of RA was divided into three segments based on the sheath location during dTRA: no sheath protection portion (proximal RA segment) and sheath protection portion (divided into mid- and distal segments). Acute RA injuries, including tears, dissections, perforations, thrombi, and spasms, were analyzed. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was assessed using ultrasonography 24 h after dTRA. Acute RA injury was observed in 45.5% of patients after dTRA. The incidence of tear, dissection, perforation, thrombi, and spasm in all the patients was 11.5%, 16.5%, 1.5%, 17.5%, and 17.5%, respectively. In segment-level analysis, dissection and spasm were significantly more frequent in the proximal segment, followed by the mid and distal segments (11.0% vs. 5.5% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.015; 13.0% vs. 4.0% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.002). The rate of RAO at 24-h follow-up was 3.0%. Acute RA injuries were observed in nearly half of the patients using OCT via dTRA; dissection and spasm occurred more frequently in the proximal segment. Hydrophilic-coated sheaths have the potential advantage of preventing radial artery spasm and dissection.
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.