Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

By P. Agostoni, G. Biondi-Zoccai, M. de Benedictis, S. Rigattieri, M. Turri, M. Anselmi, C. Vassanelli, Piero Zardini, Y. Louvard, Martial Hamon. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004

1,075 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Emergency Medical Services, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eee5e041b9c90ce5f8d3867064cc527caf22d2cd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. S. Jolly
2. S. Yusuf
3. S. Amlani
4. S. Mehta
5. M. Hamon
6. E. Amsterdam
7. N. Wenger
8. I. Graham

Citations in the corpus

• Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. (2009, methodology): “The previous meta analysis had demonstrated that radial access reduced all access site complications.(1) Those access site complications included hematomas prolonging hospital discharge, pseudoaneurysms requiring ultrasound guided compression or thrombin”