ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
Distal radial access for coronary procedures in an all-comer population: the first 1000 patients in a prospective cohort.
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.
- Optimizing distal radial access: clinical and anatomical predictors of failure from the multicenter DISTAL registry.Coronary artery disease · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Distal Radial Artery Recanalization (RETRY Study): Initial Case Series and Early Experience.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Distal radial access for complex percutaneous coronary interventions: current evidence and future perspectives.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Distal radial access in interventional cardiology: technique, pitfalls and recommendations.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: Distal radial access (DRA) for coronary procedures is currently recognized as an alternative to conventional transradial access, with documented advantages primarily related to access-related complications. However, widespread adoption of DRA as the default approach remains limited. Therefore, this prospective cohort study aimed to present our initial experience with DRA for coronary procedures in any clinical settings. Methods: From August 2020 to November 2023, we included 1000 DRA procedures (943 patients) conducted at a single center. The study enrolled a diverse patient population. We recommended pre- and postprocedural ultrasound evaluations of the radial artery course, with ultrasound-guided DRA puncture. The primary endpoint was DRA success, while secondary endpoints included coronary procedure success, DRA performance metrics, and the incidence of access-related complications. Results: The DRA success rate was 97.4% (n = 974), with coronary procedure success at 96.9% (n = 969). The median DRA time was 40 [interquartile range, 30-60] seconds. Diagnostic procedures accounted for 64% (n = 644) of cases, while 36% (n = 356) involved percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including primary PCI in 13% (n = 128). Pre-procedure ultrasound evaluation and ultrasound-guided DRA were performed in 83% (n = 830) and 85% (n = 848) of cases, respectively. Access-related complications occurred in 2.9% (n = 29). Conclusions: This study shows the safety and feasibility of DRA for coronary procedures, particularly when performed under ultrasound guidance in a diverse patient population. High rates of successful access and coronary procedure outcomes were observed, together with a low incidence of access-related complications. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC06165406).
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.