ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Access Site Complications in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Using the Radial Versus the Femoral Approach for Complex Lesions: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shedding light on radiation exposure: Emergency vs. elective catheterization procedures in a prospective cohort study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a widely used therapeutic approach for complex coronary artery disease, especially in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The choice of vascular access site, typically radial or femoral, can significantly impact patient outcomes due to varying complication rates associated with each approach.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare access site complications between radial and femoral approaches in primary PCI for complex coronary lesions, providing insights into the safety and efficacy of these approaches.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, at a tertiary care cardiovascular center. A total of 350 adult patients presenting with STEMI and requiring emergency PCI for complex coronary lesions were included and randomized equally to either radial (n = 175) or femoral (n = 175) access groups. Primary outcomes included access site complications, such as hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, and major bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included procedural success, access site crossover, and hospital stay duration. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, Student's t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression.
resultsThe incidence of access site complications was significantly lower in the radial group (11.4%) compared to the femoral group (22.9%) (p = 0.007). Major bleeding events were also notably reduced in the radial group (2.3% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.01). There was a significantly shorter median hospital stay for the radial group (three days vs. five days, p < 0.001), while procedural success rates were comparable between groups (97.1% vs. 94.3%, p = 0.31).
conclusionThe radial approach for primary PCI in complex lesions is associated with fewer access site complications and shorter hospital stays compared to the femoral approach, supporting its use as the preferred access site.
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.