ArticleScientific reports2025
Feasibility and safety of 0.018-inch guidewire-supported distal access catheters in establishing transradial neurointerventional access.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transradial access (TRA) in neurointervention has gained popularity due to fewer procedural complications and reduced recovery time compared to transfemoral access (TFA). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of using 0.018-inch guidewire (018''GW)-supported distal access catheters (DAC) in establishing transradial neurointerventional access, in comparison to the Ballast long sheath. We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of transradial neurointervention with Ballast long sheath-supported DACs or 018''GW-supported DACs. Patient demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, and detailed procedural information were recorded. The success rate of TRA neurointervention using 018''GW-supported DACs was comparable to that of the Ballast long sheath protocol (100% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.19). Both protocols achieved comparable placement heights of DACs and outcomes for aneurysm and symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (sICAS) treatment. Moreover, the 018''GW-supported DACs significantly decreased 6-month radial artery occlusion (RAO) rates (5.88% vs. 18.18%, p = 0.045) without any major vascular or neurological complications. This study highlights the feasibility and safety of 018''GW-supported DACs in TRA neurointervention, offering a viable alternative with reduced complications and enhanced distal stability in comparison with the Ballast long sheath.
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.