ArticleScientific reports2026
Feasibility and effectiveness of distal radial access in ST-elevation myocardial infarction from a SPEEDY PCI subanalysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The distal radial approach (dTRA) is increasingly recognized as a viable alternative to the conventional radial approach in coronary interventions. However, its utility in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-where rapid revascularization is critical-remains underexplored. To evaluate the feasibility and procedural characteristics of dTRA in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), using a prespecified subanalysis of the SPEEDY PCI study. Among 370 STEMI patients enrolled, 63 underwent PCI via dTRA and 307 via the conventional radial approach. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed using Killip class, GRACE score, and door-to-sheath time as covariates. After matching, the dTRA group had significantly shorter sheath-to-balloon (12.5 ± 11.5 vs. 19.7 ± 11.7 min, p = 0.002) and door-to-balloon times (50.2 ± 25.9 vs. 62.3 ± 19.9 min, p = 0.007). Procedural success and 30-day mortality rates were comparable between groups. dTRA appears feasible and safe for STEMI patients in high-volume centers. While shorter time metrics were observed, these may reflect institutional practices and operator experience rather than the access site alone.
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.