ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion following transradial coronary procedures.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology. 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.
- Relationship Between the Systemic Coagulation-Inflammation Index and Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Coronary Angiography.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- Transradial access in interventional gynecology and obstetrics: Current evidence, clinical applications, and future directions.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2026Review
- Optimal radial artery diameter for predicting radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary catheterization.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Structural radial artery modifications following transradial access: Mechanisms, clinical implications, and preventive strategies.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: The use of transradial access for percutaneous coronary procedures has increased due to its advantages over the femoral approach. However, this benefit comes at the expense of a higher rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Our objective was to assess the incidence and predictors of RAO following transradial catheterization. Additionally, we studied anatomic variations of the radial artery (RA). Methods: This prospective study enrolled 427 patients who underwent coronary angiography or angioplasty via transradial access. The forearm arteries were evaluated by ultrasound. If RAO was present, follow-up ultrasound examinations were performed at 1 and 3 months postprocedure. Results: Our study population included 288 men (67.4%) and 139 women (32.6%). The mean age was 61.9 ± 11.1 years. RAO occurred in 48 patients (11.24%), and spontaneous recanalization was observed within 3 months in 15 patients (32.6%). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of RAO were younger age (OR, 0.642; 95%CI, 0.480-0.858; P = .031), low periprocedural systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.598; 95%CI, 0.415-0.862; P = .007), a small radial diameter (OR, 0.371; 95%CI, 0.323-0.618; P = .031), insufficient anticoagulation (OR, 0.287; 95%CI, 0.163-0.505; P < .001), occlusive hemostasis (OR, 0.128; 95%CI, 0.047-0.353; P < .001), and long duration of hemostasis. The overall incidence of RA anatomic variations was 14.8% (n = 63). Among these, 40 patients (63.5%) had a high radial origin, 18 (28.6%) had extreme RA tortuosity, and 5 (7.9%) had a complete radioulnar loop. Conclusions: The main modifiable predictors of RAO are insufficient heparinization and occlusive hemostasis. Preventive strategies should focus primarily on these 2 predictive factors to reduce the risk of RAO.
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.