SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Transradial versus transfemoral access in diagnostic cerebral angiography: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 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.
- Transradial versus transfemoral neuroangiography in a tertiary pediatric hospital-a propensity score matched study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- SF-36 Quality of Life Outcomes After Right Transradial Cerebral Angiography: A Prospective Short-Term Follow-Up Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dual Artery Compression for Patent Hemostasis and Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion: The Quebec TerryCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Safety of a Computer-Controlled Device for Transradial Cerebral Angiography: A Prospective Pilot Study.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic Cerebral Angiography (CA) is a relatively common procedure that provides detailed evaluation of the brain's blood vessels. With the growing preference for Transradial artery (TRA) access over Transfemoral artery (TFA) access, our review aims to compare clinical outcomes and complications between these two approaches.
methodsWe carried out a systematic review using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion was limited to studies that exclusively compared TRA versus TFA approaches for cerebral diagnostic purposes.
resultsOur study included 27 studies encompassing a total of 12,806 patients. The TRA arm comprised 6,284 patients with a median age of 57.9 years, and 46.4% were male. The TFA arm included 6,522 patients with a median age of 59.0 years, and 44.8% were male. Our analysis revealed that the TFA group had a higher successful Cerebral Angiography (CA) rate (OR = 0.62, p = 0.03), and lower crossover rate (OR: 2.85, p < 0.01) compared to the TRA group. However, the TRA group demonstrated a significantly lower rate of total complications (OR: 0.52, p < 0.01) and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) in hours ([MD]: -33.25, p < 0.001) compared to the TFA group. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of procedural metrics.
conclusionOur review highlighted the superiority of the transfemoral artery approach in terms of success rates and lower crossover rates. However, transradial artery access may be preferred due to its association with lower complication rates and shorter hospital stays, aligning with patient-centered outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40156769What 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.