ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
Transradial Access vs. Transfemoral Access for Primary PCI in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Findings from a National, Multicenter Registry and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02306616 (Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China), which is not on this 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.
Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China: A Collaborative Project of AHA and CSC (CCC Project) - Acute Coronary Syndrome
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reconsidering Radial Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock.Korean circulation journal · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTransradial access (TRA) is recommended for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to lower mortality and bleeding risk, but evidence in STEMI with cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) remains limited. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TRA versus transfemoral access (TFA) for primary PCI in STEMI-CS.
methodsUsing data from a nationwide, multicenter registry, we compared TRA and TFA with multivariable-adjusted Cox regression, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Other outcomes included major bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest, reinfarction, stroke, or in-stent thrombosis. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare short-term outcomes of interest during hospitalization or within 30 days of hospital discharge.
resultsAmong 837 eligible patients, 669 underwent TRA. Multivariable Cox regression showed that TRA was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.91), MACE (adjusted HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91), but a non-significantly lower risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.35-1.49) compared to TFA. Meta-analysis of 65,943 patients from 17 studies confirmed lower short-term mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.43-0.57), major bleeding (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71), and MACE (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) with TRA.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that, in STEMI-CS, TRA is associated with lower short-term all-cause mortality compared with TFA, supporting the potential advantages of TRA in this population.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02306616.
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.