In plain language
In a randomized trial of 1,001 coronary procedures, operators' measured wrist, head and chest doses were similar whether left distal radial or right conventional radial access was used, so access choice can rest on other clinical factors.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Randomized trial
- Who was studied
- Interventional cardiologists, Patients
- Size
- n = 1,001 patients
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Operator left wrist dose did not differ significantly between left distal radial and right transradial access.
Key figures: 4.76 μSv vs 5.20 μSv; P = 0.342
Operator head dose did not differ significantly between groups.
Key figures: 2.00 μSv vs 1.83 μSv; P = 0.416
Operator chest dose did not differ significantly between groups.
Key figures: 1.28 μSv vs 1.07 μSv; P = 0.199
Fluoroscopy time and procedure time were similar between access routes.
Key figures: 4.5 vs 4.2 minutes, P = 0.673; 16.0 vs 15.0 minutes, P = 0.314
Access-site crossover rates were similar.
Key figures: 6.6% vs 5.2%; P = 0.416
Limits to keep in mind
Only 5 experienced distal radial operators were measured and the trial was open-label; the abstract does not state the country or the shielding used, and per-procedure doses are small surrogate measures rather than health outcomes.
Related research summaries
- Two Central Nervous System Tumors in One Catheter Lab: Time to Rethink Radiation Protection (2026, Retrospective cohort study)
- Extended Protective Shield Under Table to Reduce Operator Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: The EXTRA-RAD Study (2019, Randomized trial)
- Factors Contributing To Radiation Dose For Patients And Operators During Diagnostic Cardiac Angiography (2018, Retrospective cohort study)
- Operator radiation exposure during transradial coronary angiography: Effect of single vs. double catheters (2017, Randomized trial)
- Reduction of radiation exposure during complex interventions for chronic total coronary occlusions: Implementing low dose radiation protocols without affecting procedural success rates (2017, Retrospective cohort study)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.