Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Distal transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention: a single-center randomized controlled study (DRAGON study).
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransradial access (TRA) is the standard vascular approach for coronary interventions because it lowers bleeding risk and improves patient comfort. Nevertheless, radial artery occlusion (RAO) remains an important limitation, preventing re-use of the radial artery for subsequent procedures. Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been proposed as a strategy to further reduce RAO while preserving procedural efficacy.
aimsTo assess whether dTRA reduces early and mid-term RAO compared with conventional TRA in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsIn this single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label superiority trial, 426 consecutive patients scheduled for elective PCI between July 2023 and January 2024 were assigned 1:1 to dTRA (n = 213) or TRA (n = 213). Duplex ultrasonography was used to assess RAO at 24 h and 30 days. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: 24-hour RAO; secondary endpoints: 30-day RAO, procedural success, hemostasis time, radiation exposure, and hand/wrist function scores.
resultsOne patient withdrew consent, leaving 425 patients (dTRA 213, TRA 212) for analysis. The 24-hour RAO rate was significantly lower in the dTRA group compared to the TRA group (0.5% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001). At 30 days, RAO remained lower in the dTRA group (1.6% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001). Median hemostasis time was 3.0 h with dTRA versus 6.0 h with TRA (p < 0.001). Procedural success was comparable between groups (82.2% vs. 80.2%; p = 0.72), as was the fluoroscopy dose (1630.0 mGy [1069.0-2481.0] vs. 1598.0 mGy [1039.0-2512.0], p = 0.73). Early wrist function scores were marginally better in the dTRA group (p = 0.048).
conclusionsIn elective PCI patients, dTRA significantly reduces RAO incidence and shortens hemostasis time compared to TRA, without compromising procedural success or increasing radiation exposure, while modestly improving early hand function. These data support routine adoption of dTRA for coronary interventions.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2300073902 (registered on 25 July 2023).
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.