ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Feasibility and safety of the distal radial access for vascular access interventional therapy.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as an alternative approach to reduce the risk of radial artery occlusion in coronary angiography. Vascular access intervention therapy (VAIVT) is traditionally used to treat arteriovenous fistula stenosis. However, the feasibility and safety of DRA for VAIVT have not been established. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using DRA for VAIVT. We included 421 consecutive VAIVT procedures for upper limb arteriovenous fistulas retrospectively. DRA for VAIVT was performed in 181 procedures (DRA group), and the remaining procedures were approached through the brachial artery or vein (SA group: standard access group). Clinical follow-up was performed to evaluate the incidence of hematoma and dialysis access-associated steal syndrome (DASS). The mean follow-up duration following VAIVT was 24.0 months. The VAIVT success rate did not differ significantly between the groups (DRA: 97.8% vs. SA: 98.3%; P = 0.73), neither did the incidence of puncture site hematoma (DRA: 0.0% vs. SA: 0.8%; P = 0.51). There were no complications with DASS symptoms in the DRA group during the clinical follow-up. In the DRA group, 90 patients underwent a subsequent VAIVT procedure, and 85 patients (94.4%) underwent a subsequent VAIVT by DRA. DRA is a feasible and safe strategy for VAIVT and could be considered an option for VAIVT.
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.