ArticleCoronary artery disease2026
Optimizing distal radial access: clinical and anatomical predictors of failure from the multicenter DISTAL registry.
Article in Coronary artery disease, 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.
- Comment on the CORRECT RADIAL trial: considerations on methodology and interpretation.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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal radial access (DRA) is a promising alternative to conventional transradial access for coronary procedures, offering fewer vascular complications, shorter hemostasis, and greater patient comfort. However, the predictors of DRA failure remain insufficiently defined. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and predictors of DRA failure in an all-comer population and to develop an evidence-based strategy to optimize procedural success.
methodsA prospective multicenter cohort included 1387 patients who underwent 1454 coronary procedures through DRA between August 2020 and September 2024. Multivariate logistic regression and conditional inference trees (CITs) were used to identify and visualize independent predictors of failure.
resultsDRA was successful in 96.5% of cases, with 99% of coronary procedures completed through the initial access. Access-related complications were infrequent (2.5%), including 0.8% inhospital radial artery occlusion. Weak distal radial pulse was the strongest independent predictor of failure (odds ratio: 10.07, 95% confidence interval: 5.22-20.21; P < 0.001), while preprocedural ultrasound (US) evaluation, US-guided puncture, right-sided access, and operator experience independently predicted success. US guidance markedly improved outcomes in patients with weak pulses (98.2% vs. 61.0%; P < 0.001). The learning curve plateaued after 60 cases.
conclusionDRA is a safe, feasible, and effective access strategy for coronary procedures in an all-comer population. The success of the procedure depends on the strength of the arterial pulse, the US guidance, and the experience of the operator. The CIT-derived evidence-based framework provides a practical and reproducible approach to optimize access-site selection and improve procedural outcomes.
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.