ArticleMedicine2026
Comparison of procedural efficiency and safety between transradial and transfemoral approaches in elective diagnostic cerebral angiography: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 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
Diagnostic cerebral angiography is essential for the treatment of cerebrovascular disease. The conventional transfemoral approach (TFA) carries risks of vascular complications and longer recovery. The transradial approach (TRA) is a promising alternative; however, more evidence, especially direct comparisons with TFA, is needed to support its use in diagnostic procedures. This single-center retrospective cohort study compared TRA and TFA in elective diagnostic cerebral angiography. Overall, 96 patients treated between February 2021 and January 2024 were included, and 1:1 propensity-score matching was used to create 48 matched patients per group based on arterial access. The primary endpoint was the rate of overall procedural complications within 24 hours. The secondary endpoints included puncture, procedure, fluoroscopy, and hemostasis time. Statistical analysis was performed using Student t test, Mann-Whitney U-test, chi-square test, and Fisher test. Both groups showed 100% success with arterial puncture and selective angiography. Total procedure time was shorter with TRA (44.15 ± 8.75 vs 48.23 ± 10.56 minutes; P = .04), and hemostasis time was faster (5.53 ± 2.13 vs 7.08 ± 3.27 hours; P <.01). Complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (2.1% vs 14.6%; P = .02), with access-site hematomas and 1 pseudoaneurysm occurring mainly in the TFA group. For diagnostic cerebral angiography, TRA showed similar success to TFA but with greater efficiency, faster hemostasis, and significantly fewer access-site complications. TRA may be considered a preferred access strategy for eligible patients; however, given the retrospective observational design, the findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in prospective randomized studies.
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.