ArticleIndian heart journal
Comparison of patient radiation exposure in coronary angiography via the trans-radial versus trans-femoral approach.
Article in Indian heart journal. 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.
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of bilateral radial versus femoral artery approaches for subclavian artery stenting: a single-center retrospective study.American journal of translational research · 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
backgroundCardiac catheterization via the trans-radial approach (TRA) has shown several advantages over the trans-femoral approach (TFA) but with a concern of higher radiation exposure. Considering the growing experience with TRA, this study compares patient's radiation during coronary angiography using TRA versus TFA.
methodsThis study included consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiogram over a year at tertiary hospital performed by experienced operators through radial or femoral access. Parameters compared between the two routes included fluoroscopy time (FT), cineangiography time (CT), cini-sequences (CS), and patient radiation exposure quantified by Air Kerma (AK) and Dose Area Product (DAP).
resultsA total of 910 patients were studied, with 461 (50.6 %) undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) via TFA and 449 (49.4 %) via TRA. The mean age was similar between the femoral (54.07) and radial groups (53.7) years (p = 0.33), with slightly lesser proportion of males in the femoral group (74.62 % vs 79.73 %; p = 0.06). The mean (SD) DAP and AK were 15.71 (7.05) Gy·cm
conclusionCoronary angiography via TRA is associated with increased patient's radiation. Future studies should investigate strategies to reduce radiation exposure in trans-radial procedures.
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.