ArticlePloS one2026
Initial arterial access used and associated factors in coronary procedures: A retrospective study from a tertiary indian center.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransradial access (TRA) is increasingly preferred over transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary procedures due to its safety profile. However, uptake varies across clinical settings, particularly in complex and high-risk patients.
objectiveTo assess arterial access site utilization (TRA vs TFA) and associated clinical and procedural factors in patients undergoing coronary procedures performed by a single operator at a tertiary center.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 250 patients who underwent coronary procedures between September 2024 and February 2025, all performed by a single operator. Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were analyzed to evaluate factors associated with arterial access choice. Logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of access site.
resultsTFA was used in 52.8% and TRA in 47.2% of procedures. TRA was more common in stable patients and for diagnostic angiography (68% vs 32%), while TFA was preferred in emergencies, LV dysfunction, and complex multivessel disease. Independent predictors of TFA included older age (OR 1.021; p = 0.049), mild/moderate LV dysfunction (ORs 2.93 and 3.16, respectively), and prior CABG (p = 0.01). TRA was associated with fewer complications and was never used in unstable patients. Access site choice was also significantly associated with coronary disease burden and treated vessel complexity.
conclusionDespite global trends favoring TRA, TFA remains predominant in high-risk and complex cases in our setting. Tailoring access strategies based on patient risk and procedural complexity remains essential.
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.