Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

Open access
Valgimigli, Marco, Gagnor, Andrea, Calabró, Paolo, Frigoli, Enrico, Leonardi, Sergio, Zaro, Tiziana, Rubartelli, Paolo, Briguori, Carlo, Andò, Giuseppe, Repetto, Alessandra, Limbruno, Ugo, Cortese, Bernardo, Sganzerla, Paolo, Lupi, Alessandro, Galli, Mario, Colangelo, Salvatore, Ierna, Salvatore, Ausiello, Arturo, Presbitero, Patrizia, Sardella, Gennaro, Varbella, Ferdinando, Esposito, Giovanni, Santarelli, Andrea, Tresoldi, Simone, Nazzaro, Marco, Zingarelli, Antonio, de Cesare, Nicoletta, Rigattieri, Stefano, Tosi, Paolo, Palmieri, Cataldo, Brugaletta, Salvatore, Rao, Sunil V, Heg, Dik, Rothenbühler, Martina, Vranckx, Pascal, Jüni, Peter·2015·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60292-6

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 1,303

Metadata

Authors
Valgimigli, M., Gagnor, A., Calabró, P., Frigoli, E., Leonardi, S., Zaro, T., Rubartelli, P., Briguori, C., Andò, G., Repetto, A., Limbruno, U., Cortese, B., Sganzerla, P., Lupi, A., Galli, M., Colangelo, S., Ierna, S., Ausiello, A., Presbitero, P., Sardella, G., Varbella, F., Esposito, G., Santarelli, A., Tresoldi, S., Nazzaro, M., Zingarelli, A., de Cesare, N., Rigattieri, S., Tosi, P., Palmieri, C., Brugaletta, S., Rao, S. V., Heg, D., Rothenbühler, M., Vranckx, P., & Jüni, P.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
385
Issue
9986
Pages
2465-2476
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2112255365
Cited by
1,303
References
28
FWCI
116.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60292-6
The paper
Valgimigli, M., Gagnor, A., Calabró, P., Frigoli, E., Leonardi, S., Zaro, T., Rubartelli, P., Briguori, C., Andò, G., Repetto, A., Limbruno, U., Cortese, B., Sganzerla, P., Lupi, A., Galli, M., Colangelo, S., Ierna, S., Ausiello, A., Presbitero, P., . . . Jüni, P. (2015). Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60292-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.