ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Radial Versus Femoral Access for Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: Insights From a Tertiary Academic Center in Johannesburg.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 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
backgroundThe radial artery is the preferred access for performing diagnostic coronary angiograms (DCA). However, data on the safety and efficacy of radial compared to femoral access in low- and middle-income countries is limited.
aimsThis study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of radial versus femoral access in patients referred for a DCA.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study on patients referred for DCA to evaluate the safety and efficacy of radial versus femoral access routes.
resultsThe study population comprised 653 patients with a mean age of 58.2 ± 12.7 years, of which 408 (62.5%) were males. Radial access was utilized in 318 (48.7%) patients. The median duration of the radial access was 50 min (Interquartile range [IQR]: 40-60) and was longer than that of the femoral artery access, which had a median duration of 45 min (IQR: 35-60) (p = 0.010). The median total radiation dose emitted during the DCA in the femoral access group was 3511 milligray per square meter (mGy/m²), (IQR: 2154-5821), and patients in the radial access group received a median radiation dose of 4011 mGy/m² (IQR: 2298-6411) (p = 0.0661). The mean contrast volume administered in the radial and femoral artery access group did not differ significantly, measuring 83.7 ± 36.1 milliliters (mL) and 88.9 ± 37.1 mL, respectively (p = 0.073).
conclusionsRadial access was used in nearly half of all DCA, reflecting its growing adoption in clinical practice. These findings support the use of radial access as a safe and viable alternative to femoral access, even in resource-limited settings.
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.