SynthesisMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2025
Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Artery Access versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Optimizing distal radial access: clinical and anatomical predictors of failure from the multicenter DISTAL registry.Coronary artery disease · 2026Article
- Comment on the CORRECT RADIAL trial: considerations on methodology and interpretation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Efficacy of catheterization of the distal radial artery in blood pressure monitoring and blood sampling: a randomized controlled clinical study.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiac catheterization using the distal radial artery (DRA) access, at the level of the anatomical snuff box post-radial artery bifurcation, may be linked to a lower rate of arterial occlusion and better hemostasis. In this meta-analysis, we compare DRA versus proximal radial artery (PRA) access in cardiac catheterization or angiography.
methodsA detailed literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception till June 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken on RevMan.
resultsOur meta-analyses include 21 randomized controlled trials with 9,539 patients (DRA 4,761, PRA 4,778). DRA significantly reduced 24-h radial artery occlusion rates (RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.40, p ≤ 0.00001) and time to hemostasis (minutes) (MD -44.46, 95% CI: -50.64 to -38.92, p < 0.00001), whereas PRA was significantly superior in terms of the puncture success rate (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.99, p < 0.01), the crossover rate (RR 2.89, 95% CI: 2.02 to 4.15, p < 0.00001), and puncture attempts (MD 0.69, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.00, p = 0.00001).
conclusionDRA was associated with a lower risk of occlusion and lower time to hemostasis, but required a greater number of puncture attempts and had lower success rate. Further research is required to elucidate the most optimal approach.
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.