Distal transradial access for cardiac catheterization: A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systematically review the literature for cardiac catheterization and coronary angiography via distal transradial access (dTRA) and its outcomes. BACKGROUND: dTRA, via anatomical snuffbox, may have several advantages over conventional transradial access (cTRA) for percutaneous cardiac procedures, including easier left-sided access for aorto-coronary grafts, future proximal radial artery preservation, and patient and operator comfort. However, its procedural characteristics and safety profile remain unclear. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to September 2018. Two authors independently performed two-stage selection and data extraction. Reports assessing the dTRA approach for cardiac intervention in adults reporting any outcomes were eligible. Descriptive summary statistics were calculated from pooled data. RESULTS: A total of 19 publications comprising 4,212 participants undergoing dTRA were included. Mean age was 63.8 years, and 23.0% were female. dTRA was primarily undertaken for assessment of stable coronary artery disease (87.6%), with 41.7% for diagnostic procedures and 46.9% undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The overall success rate for undertaking the dTRA approach was 95.4% (69-100%). Complications occurred in 2.4% of cases, of which the leading complications were bleeding/hematoma (18.2%). Complication rates did not significantly differ between dTRA and cTRA. The occurrence of radial artery occlusion in patients undergoing dTRA was low (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Observational data demonstrate that dTRA is a safe and feasible method for percutaneous cardiac procedures, with high rates of procedural success and low rates of complication. As data comparing dTRA with cTRA remain limited, future high-quality randomized comparative studies are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".