ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2026
Original Article--Evaluation of Radial Artery Anatomy With Various Anatomical Variants in Patients Undergoing Transradial Catheterization.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 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
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the incidence of radial artery anomalies in a large cohort of patients undergoing TRA and to evaluate their specific impact as predictors of procedural failure and access site complications. Methods: This prospective, observational, single-center study enrolled 1000 consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography or intervention via TRA between 2022 and 2024. Radial artery anatomy was assessed using retrograde radial arteriography immediately following sheath insertion. Anatomical variants were categorized into high bifurcation (origin proximal to the cubital fossa), Radial artery loops (full 360-degree curvature), Tortuosity (curve of more than 45° in the vessel), Narrow calliber, Spasm, and Ulnar absent. Procedural success was defined by completion of the procedure via the initial radial access site. Binary logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of procedural failure (crossover to alternate access). Results: Radial artery anomalies were observed in 9.3% (n = 93) of the total cohort. High bifurcation (4.7%) was the most common variant, followed by loops (2.3%) and tortuosity (1.5%). Overall procedural success via the initial radial site was 93.8%. The presence of an anatomical anomaly was a highly significant independent predictor of procedural failure/crossover (Odds Ratio [OR]: 8.16; 95% CI: 4.29 to 15.52; P < 0.0001). Specifically, radial loops were associated with a failure rate of 32.3% ( Conclusion: Radial artery variants, particularly loops, are significant predictors of procedural crossover but remain rare (~2%) and are successfully negotiated in nearly two-thirds of cases. These findings do not support routine upfront radial angiography, which increases radiation exposure and costs without meaningfully improving success rates. Instead, a selective angiographic approach is recommended for challenging cases. While distal radial access (dTRA) is a promising alternative, its adoption is tempered by a steeper learning curve and smaller vessel calibers.
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.