ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
Anatomical Snuffbox Versus Dorsum of the Hand for Optimal Access Site in Distal Radial Access: Insight From the KODRA Registry.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding the Debate on Distal Radial Access Site Selection in Coronary Intervention.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDistal radial access (DRA) has been recognized as an alternative to conventional radial access, with potential puncture sites at the anatomical snuffbox and on the dorsum of the hand. However, the optimal puncture site remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DRA at these two sites.
methodsThis analysis was performed using the KODRA (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach) registry. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as successful puncture and completion of the coronary procedure without access-site crossover, while the primary safety endpoint was the DRA-related bleeding.
resultsA total of 4,977 and 4,644 patients were included in efficacy and safety analyses, respectively. DRA via the anatomical snuffbox improved the primary efficacy endpoint (odds ratio [OR], 2.358; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.800-3.090; p<0.001), but did not differ from the dorsum of the hand approach in the primary safety endpoint (OR, 1.305; 95% CI, 0.792-2.150; p=0.296). The anatomical snuffbox approach was also associated with higher puncture success rates (OR, 2.244; 95% CI, 1.672-3.010; p<0.001), but with an increased rate of prolonged hemostasis >180 minutes (OR, 15.002; 95% CI, 7.708-29.197; p<0.001).
conclusionsCompared to the dorsum of the hand approach, DRA via the anatomical snuffbox demonstrated higher procedural efficacy, but was associated with prolonged hemostasis, without an increase in DRA-related bleeding. Further research is needed to determine the optimal site for DRA.
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.