Current alternatives to traditional radial approach for coronary interventions: A randomized prospective study of the ulnar and distal radial approaches

Abstract

BackgroundThe radial artery is the standard access for coronary intervention; however, it is essential to have alternative accesses as it may be used as a conduit during coronary artery bypass grafting or for dialysis fistula. Ulnar and distal radial artery accesses have emerged as alternative accesses for traditional radial artery.AimTo compare distal radial artery access and ulnar artery access as alternatives to traditional radial artery access regarding safety, efficacy, and success rate.MethodsTwo‐hundred patients were included (100 traditional radial [TRA], 50 distal radial [DRA] and 50 ulnar). Access artery follow up ultrasound was performed up to 28 days.ResultsProcedural success rate was 97%, 74%, and 92% in the TRA, DRA and ulnar groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Crossover occurred in 3 patients (3%) in TRA, 13 patients (26%) in DRA and 4 cases (8%) in ulnar group (p < 0.001). The most common cause of crossover was failure of artery cannulation. Regarding cannulation time, the mean access time in seconds was 80.19 ± 25.98, 148.4 ± 29.60, 90.5 ± 21.84 in TRA, DRA and ulnar groups, respectively (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur study concluded that these new approaches proved to be potential alternatives to traditional radial approach; however, ulnar artery access proved to be superior to distal radial artery access as regards success rate and cannulation time.