ReviewPostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2025
Radial artery access in interventional cardiology: a review of current practices.
Review in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Impact Factor 2.0: a milestone and a call to action forPostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transradial access (TRA) has evolved from an alternative technique to the guideline-recommended default strategy for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. This shift is driven by TRA's association with improved clinical outcomes, fewer complications, and enhanced patient comfort compared with transfemoral access (TFA). The evolution of transradial techniques, including distal radial access (DRA), reflects a broader move towards minimally invasive, patient-centered interventional cardiology. This narrative review synthesizes data from 50 peer-reviewed articles retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, observational studies, and expert consensus statements. Key topics examined include anatomical considerations, comparisons between left and right radial access, comparisons between TRA and TFA, the emerging role of DRA, special considerations in certain populations, procedural complications, and cost analysis. TRA represents a major advancement in interventional cardiology, enhancing safety, efficiency, and patient satisfaction. Its incorporation into routine practice improves outcomes and procedural ergonomics. Despite certain anatomical and technical challenges, robust evidence supports TRA as the default strategy for coronary interventions across most patient populations. Ongoing investigations and trials continue to define optimal procedural techniques and patient selection criteria. These data are expected to further standardize clinical practice and support more consistent, high-quality outcomes across centers.
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.