BACKGROUND: The ulnar artery is rarely selected for cardiac catheterization despite the expanding use of the transradial access (TRA). We tried to compare default transulnar access (TUA) with TRA in terms of feasibility and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open label, single center, observational study. We analyzed a total of 410 patients with normal Allen's test, who were then scheduled for coronary angiography through TUA with ad hoc PCI if necessary. Procedures were performed by a single operator who had an adequate transradial experience (≥150 transradial coronary procedures per year) but not trained in transulnar procedures. We analyzed observed findings with a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing TRA angiography under a previous study done at our center. We also performed selective ulnar arteriography of 200 patients, through radial route, to predict the bottlenecks of TUA. OBSERVATIONS: There is no statistically significant difference among the number of attempts made till the successful puncture, the total procedure time and the total fluoroscopy time for either radial or ulnar access angiography by an experienced operator (P > 0.05). However, the time taken in arterial access is statistically significant in the initial learning curve for the same (P < 0.05). On the contrary, the arterial access time, the total procedure time, and the total fluoroscopy time, all are statistically significant for the inexperienced operator (P < 0.05). There is a negligible incidence of nonmaneuverable anatomic obstruction in the real-world scenario in TUA, and so fear of the same should not impede the use of this route. Vasospasm in the use of this route is also not different from the radial route, with the experience of the operator. CONCLUSIONS: For an experienced operator, TUA is a safe and also an effective alternative to TRA in terms of feasibility and safety.
BACKGROUND: The ulnar artery is rarely selected for cardiac catheterization despite the expanding use of the transradial access (TRA). We tried to compare default transulnar access (TUA) with TRA in terms of feasibility and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open label, single center, observational study. We analyzed a total of 410 patients with normal Allen's test, who were then scheduled for coronary angiography through TUA with ad hoc PCI if necessary. Procedures were performed by a single operator who had an adequate transradial experience (≥150 transradial coronary procedures per year) but not trained in transulnar procedures. We analyzed observed findings with a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing TRA angiography under a previous study done at our center. We also performed selective ulnar arteriography of 200 patients, through radial route, to predict the bottlenecks of TUA. OBSERVATIONS: There is no statistically significant difference among the number of attempts made till the successful puncture, the total procedure time and the total fluoroscopy time for either radial or ulnar access angiography by an experienced operator (P > 0.05). However, the time taken in arterial access is statistically significant in the initial learning curve for the same (P < 0.05). On the contrary, the arterial access time, the total procedure time, and the total fluoroscopy time, all are statistically significant for the inexperienced operator (P < 0.05). There is a negligible incidence of nonmaneuverable anatomic obstruction in the real-world scenario in TUA, and so fear of the same should not impede the use of this route. Vasospasm in the use of this route is also not different from the radial route, with the experience of the operator. CONCLUSIONS: For an experienced operator, TUA is a safe and also an effective alternative to TRA in terms of feasibility and safety.
Authors: Muhammad U Manzoor; Ibrahim A Almulhim; Abdullah A Alrashed; Abdulrahman Y Alturki; Fatimah A Alghabban; Sultan M Al-Qahtani Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 1.764