Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
CORRECT RADIAL RCT. CORonaRy angiography and intErventions via distal vs proximal transradial aCcess-a randomized Trial of different RADIAL puncture sites.
Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04194606 (CORRECT RADIAL RCT), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
CORRECT RADIAL RCT: CORonaRy Angiography and intErventions Via Distal vs Proximal aCcess - a Randomized Trial of Different Radial Puncture Sites
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on the CORRECT RADIAL trial: considerations on methodology and interpretation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Rebuttal to: "Comment on the CORRECT RADIAL trial: considerations on methodology and interpretation." (CRCD-D-26-00099).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransradial access (TRA) is recommended as the primary route for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In recent years, a more distal puncture site in the area of the anatomical snuffbox (distal radial access; dRA) has been established. In this randomized multicenter trial, we aim to demonstrate the superiority of dRA with respect to the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) compared with the traditional proximal radial access (pRA).
methodsPatients scheduled for CAG or PCI in five cardiology centers in Germany were randomized for standard pRA or dRA. The primary endpoint was a reduced rate of RAO (superiority) after 30 days. Secondary endpoints included crossover rate, hand function assessed by QuickDASH test, duration of the puncture and procedure, and the puncture success rate. Proximal and distal radial artery patency was examined by ultrasound within 48 h and after 30 days.
resultsA total of 254 patients were enrolled (mean age: 66 ± 10 years, 71% male gender, 48% PCI). The trial was halted prematurely after 50% of the planned population. The primary endpoint was numerically reduced in the dRA group (N = 1/128; 0.9%) compared with the pRA group (N = 3/126, 2.8%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.36). Puncture success was high in both arms (N = 240/254, 94%) and no statistically significant difference between the two puncture sites (dRA: 91%; pRA: 98%) was observed. Major complications were not encountered.
conclusionThe rate of radial artery occlusion after dRA for coronary intervention was not significantly reduced compared with pRA.
trial registrationThis study is registered in ClinicalTrials: NCT04194606.
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.