ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparative analysis of two radial hemostasis strategies following percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, single-center, real-world cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radial access is currently the approach of choice for coronary interventional procedures. However, puncture and hemostasis are not exempt from access site complications. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two radial hemostasis devices used after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in routine clinical practice. Methods: A prospective, single-center, real-world cohort study was carried out. Consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI via radial access between February 2023 and October 2024 were included. Depending on the hemostasis technique used, the patients were assigned to TR-Closure band™ or a dedicated pad (VIRUNDA®). Access site complications were assessed at the time of device removal. Results: A total of 597 patients were included (TR-Closure band™ Conclusions: Compared with TR-Closure band™, VIRUNDA® reduced bleeding, pain and paresis, and shortened compression time, without a significant increase in immediate radial occlusion. These findings support its use as a safe and efficient hemostatic alternative in routine practice.
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.