ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Trans-radial and "Snuffbox" Access Versus Trans-femoral Access in Emergency Embolization: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of 421 Procedures.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTrans-radial access (TRA) offers advantages in elective settings, but its safety and feasibility in emergencies remain understudied. This study compares TRA and trans-femoral access (TFA) in emergency embolizations at a Level 1 trauma center. MATERIALS AND
methodsEthical approval was obtained for this retrospective analysis. A total of 421 emergency embolizations performed on 389 patients were included. TRA (n = 95, including 44 distal radial) and TFA (n = 326) were compared for technical success rate, procedural success rate, and access-site complications. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of complications.
resultsTRA patients were younger (median 58 vs. 66 years; p = 0.044) with less hypertension (33.7% vs. 46.6%; p = 0.025). Technical success rate was 99.0% for TRA and 99.7% for TFA (p = 1.000). Procedural success was 100% for TRA and 99.7% for TFA (p = 1.000). Overall complications occurred in 5.5% (3.2% TRA vs. 6.1% TFA; p = 0.234), most were minor bleeding-related complications (2.1% TRA vs. 5.2% TFA; p = 0.164). Major complications (1.0% total) included pseudoaneurysm formation (n = 3; 1 in TRA, 2 in TFA) and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 1 in TFA), with no group differences (p = 0.908). Adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, antithrombotic use and sheath size, multivariate analysis found that access site (TRA vs. TFA) was not found to be an independent predictor of all complications (OR 0.524; 95% CI: 0.147 - 1.859; p = 0.317).
conclusionTRA, including distal radial "snuffbox" access, is a safe alternative to TFA for emergency embolization, demonstrating high technical and procedural success rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42089963What 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.