ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Efficacy and safety of bilateral radial versus femoral artery approaches for subclavian artery stenting: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of the bilateral radial artery versus femoral artery approach for subclavian artery stenting.
methodsThis retrospective study included 126 patients who underwent subclavian artery stenting at the First People's Hospital of Zigong between January 2019 and December 2024. Patients were divided into a bilateral radial artery group (n=63) and a femoral artery group (n=63). Baseline data, perioperative outcomes, and complications were compared. Effectiveness indicators included procedural success, radiation dose, operative time, postoperative pain score, hospital stay, and total cost. Safety outcomes included composite perioperative events (death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding) and puncture site complications.
resultsAll procedures were successfully completed without conversion. Compared to the femoral approach, the bilateral radial approach was associated with shorter operation time, reduced radiation exposure, lower postoperative pain, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and decreased total hospitalization cost (all P<0.05). No composite endpoint events occurred in either group. Puncture site complications were significantly lower with the bilateral radial approach (4.8% vs. 19.0%, P=0.028).
conclusionSubclavian artery stenting by the bilateral radial artery approach demonstrates equivalent efficacy and superior safety compared the femoral approach. It offers notable advantages in procedural efficiency, recovery, and cost-effectiveness, representing a feasible and recommendable alternative for clinical practice.
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.