Transulnar approach as an alternative to transradial approach in non-coronary intervention: safety,feasibility and technical factors

Abstract

Purpose

Transulnar access (TUA) has been shown to be an effective alternative to transradial access (TRA) for coronary intervention. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of TUA in patients undergoing visceral interventions in the setting of contraindication to TRA.

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent visceral interventions via ulnar approach were included in the study. Outcome variables include technical success, access site and bleeding complications.

Results

From May 2014 to September 2016, TUA was attempted 17 times in 14 patients (mean age: 60 years; range: 27 to 81 years) for whom TRA was planned for visceral intervention, but contraindicated. Contraindication to TRA included Barbeau D waveform (n = 3), radial artery diameter <2 mm (n = 8), known radial loop (n = 2), high takeoff of the radial artery (n = 2), prior radial artery occlusion (RAO) (n = 1), and radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula (n = 1). Interventions included selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) (n = 4), SIRT mapping (n = 2), chemoembolization (n = 6), renal embolization (n = 1) and bland liver embolization (n = 4). Technical success was achieved in 94.1% (16/17 cases) with the single failure attributed to an inability to cannulate the target vessel due to vessel tortuosity, requiring ipsilateral femoral crossover. There were no major access site or bleeding complications. Minor adverse events include two access site hematomas, which were successfully treated with conservative management.

Conclusions

TUA for visceral interventions is a safe and effective alternative to femoral approach when TRA is contraindicated.

Keywords

Radial artery TRA Transradial access Transulnar access TUA Ulnar artery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Ratib

Myint

et al.

Impact of age on access site-related outcomes in 469,983 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: Insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86(6):965–972

Ratib

Mamas

Anderson

et al;

British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Access site practice and procedural outcomes in relation to clinical presentation in 439,947 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;81 1 Pt A:20–29

Bertrand

Rao

Pancholy

et al.

Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3(10):1022–1031

Mamas

Anderson

Carr

et al;

British Cardiovascular Intervention Society; National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Baseline bleeding risk and arterial access site practice in relation to procedural outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention.

J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64(15):1554–1564

Valgimigli

Gagnor

Calabró

et al;

MATRIX Investigators.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015;385(9986):2465–2476

Amin

House

Safley

et al.

Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6(8):827–834

Benamer

Louvard

Sanmartin

et al.

A multicentre comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and PTCA in obese patients: the TROP registry.

EuroIntervention 2007;3(3):327–332

Pristipino

Trani

Nazzaro

et al;

Prospective REgistry of Vascular Access in Interventions in Lazio Region Study Group.

Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study. Heart 2009;95(6):476–482

Posham

Biederman

Patel

et al.

Transradial Approach for Noncoronary Interventions: A Single-Center Review of Safety and Feasibility in the First 1,500 Cases.

J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016;27(2):159–166

10.

Shiozawa

Tsuchiya

Endo

et al.

Transradial approach for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with conventional transfemoral approach.

J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;37(5) 412–417

11.

Garg

Madan

Khanna

et al.

Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angioplasty: Doppler-guided follow-up study.

J Invasive Cardiol 2015;27(2):106–112

12.

Deftereos

Giannopoulos

Kossyvakis

et al.

Radial artery flow-mediated dilation predicts arterial spasm during transradial coronary interventions.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011;77(5):649–654

13.

Baumann

Roberts

Real Time intraprocedural ultrasound measurements of the radial and ulnar arteries in 565 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention via the wrist: understanding anatomy and anomalies may improve access success.

J Interv Cardiol 2015;28(6):574–582

14.

Gokhroo

Kishor

Ranwa

et al.

Ulnar Artery Interventions Non-Inferior to Radial Approach: AJmer Ulnar ARtery (AJULAR) Intervention Working Group Study Results.

J Invasive Cardiol 2016;28(1):1–8

15.

Dahal

Rijal

Lee

Korr

Azrin

Transulnar versus transradial access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;87(5):857–865

16.

Kamiya

Ushijima

Kanamori

et al.

Use of the radial artery graft after transradial catheterization: is it suitable as a bypass conduit?

Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76(5):1505–1509

17.

Aptecar

Pernes

Chabane-Chaouch

et al.

Transulnar versus transradial artery approach for coronary angioplasty: the PCVI-CUBA study.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67(5):711–720

18.

de Andrade

Tebet

Nogueira

et al.

Transulnar approach as an alternative access site for coronary invasive procedures after transradial approach failure.

Am Heart J 2012;164(4):462–467

19.

Omary

Bettmann

Cardella

et al;

Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee.

Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;149 Pt 2:S293–S295

20.

Lincoff

Bittl

Harrington

et al;

REPLACE-2 Investigators.

Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 2003;289(7):853–863

21.

Barbeau

Arsenault

Dugas

Simard

Larivière

Evaluation of the ulnopalmar arterial arches with pulse oximetry and plethysmography: comparison with the Allens test in 1010 patients.

Am Heart J 2004;147(3):489–493

22.

Fischman

Swinburne

Patel

A technical guide describing the use of transradial access technique for endovascular interventions.

Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2015;18(2):58–65

23.

Beyer

Singh

et al.

Topical nitroglycerin and lidocaine to dilate the radial artery prior to transradial cardiac catheterization: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial: the PRE-DILATE Study.

Int J Cardiol 2013;168(3):2575–2578

24.

Hahalis

Tsigkas

Xanthopoulou

et al;

The Transulnar or Transradial Instead of Coronary Transfemoral Angiographies Study (the AURA of ARTEMIS Study). Transulnar compared with transradial artery approach as a default strategy for coronary procedures: a randomized trial.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6(3):252–261

25.

Gokhroo

Bisht

Gupta

Kishor

Ranwa

Palmar arch anatomy: Ajmer Working Group classification.

Vascular 2016;24(1):31–36

26.

Kedev

Zafirovska

Dharma

Petkoska

Safety and feasibility of transulnar catheterization when ipsilateral radial access is not available.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83(1):E51–60