Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Feasibility and safety analysis of distal radial arterial catheterization for arterial pressure monitoring in ICU.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Evidence Summary for Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Arterial Catheter Placement in Adult Critical Care Patients.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Factors influencing invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring accuracy: a qualitative study using the i-PARIHS framework and personas.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Response to Dr. Wang's comment.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and safety of distal radial artery (DRA) catheterization compared to conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
methodsThis single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study enrolled 197 ICU patients requiring invasive arterial pressure monitoring between May 2024 and March 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to either the DRA group (n = 99) or CRA group (n = 98). Primary outcome was first-attempt puncture success rate. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, catheterization time, compression time for hemostasis, abnormal waveform frequency, unplanned removal rate, and complications.
resultsThe DRA group demonstrated significantly lower first-attempt puncture success rates compared to the CRA group (68.69% vs. 82.65%, P = 0.022). With ultrasound assistance, final success rates were comparable between groups (98.99% vs. 97.96%, P = 0.993). Total catheterization time (133.61 ± 35.82s vs. 126.50 ± 36.99s, P = 0.175) and abnormal waveform frequency were similar between groups. The DRA group exhibited significantly shorter hemostasis times (224.45 ± 55.25s vs. 417.56 ± 71.32s, P < 0.001). Both groups had low complication rates with no statistically significant differences (1.01% vs. 3.06%, P = 0.621).
conclusionDespite lower first-attempt success rates, DRA catheterization provides equivalent monitoring stability to CRA with significantly reduced hemostasis time and comparable safety profiles. DRA represents a viable alternative for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in ICU patients, particularly those requiring rapid hemostasis, preservation of forearm radial artery integrity, and patients in special positioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40553175What 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.