A single center multioperator initial experience of 4,195 patients at a primary radial intervention program in a tertiary level center

The initial experience of 2495 cases of the ulnar artery as default access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures at a single center: An observational study

Introduction

Upper limb arterial access is being increasingly used for coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures. Radial artery access is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality as compared to femoral artery access. However, access to the radial artery is not always successful with reported crossover rates to other routes between 3% and 8%. Ulnar artery access is emerging an attractive option both as upfront access and rescue access in case of failure to obtain radial artery access.

Aims -

To assess and document the feasibility and safety of ulnar access as a default strategy.

Methods

2654 patients planned for coronary diagnostic and intervention procedureswere assessed for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were, all patients planned for coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with palpable ulnar pulse. Exclusion criteria included reverse Barbeau test type D, previous procedure resulting in radial artery occlusion/excision, hemodialysis patients having ipsilateral AV fistula and severe forearm deformities.

Results

2525 patients were found eligible, out of which 2495 (98.81%) were successfully cannulated. Procedure was completed in 2414 patients. Local site bleeding in 40 (1.6%) and acute loss of ulnar pulse noted in 33 (1.3%) out of 2495 patients. None of the patients had gangrene of access site, pseudo-aneurysm, arteriovenous fistula or neurological deficit post procedure.

Conclusion

The Ulnar artery access as a default access is safe and feasible option for patient undergoing coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures.

Meta-analysis comparing radial versus femoral approach in patients 75 years and older undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures

Introduction

Elderly patients (≥75 years) undergoing coronary angioplasty are increasing. Meta-analyses have shown the benefits of radial access which might reduce hospital stay by decreasing access site complications with associated secondary benefits, however, the population over the age of 75 years were not a large part of the cohort and may behave differently due to increased atherosclerotic burden and age-related vascular changes. In addition, complications unique to this age group such as delirium and deconditioning might occur which could have a bearing on the outcome.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, SCOPUS, Medline, Dynamed, Cochrane. The search terms used were femoral and radial, femoral versus radial, radial or femoral access site, radial or femoral comparison. There were no restrictions.

Results

There was a significant decrease (85%)in the incidence of access site complications in the radial group. The time to achieve ambulation was lower by 14.25 h (8.86–19.56 h). However, the incidence of crossover (in effect failure to perform catheterization by radial access) from radial to femoral was significantly higher. Radial access was associated with longer procedural times (2.75 min) and increased contrast dose however, there was no statistical difference in the fluoroscopy time between the two.

Conclusions

Radial access has similar benefits in elderly patients as those under the age of 75 and may be beneficial in patients at risk of delirium or deconditioning. However, crossover rates, contrast dose and procedure time were higher. It is conceivable that as experience is gained, these rates will diminish.