Search

Objectives: This study investigated the feasibility and safety of transulnar access (TUA) and efficacy of novel TR band modification for dual site hemostasis in patients with failed ipsilateral transradial approach.Background: Failed transradial access requires cross over to alternative access site. There is paucity of data on feasibility and safety of ipsilateral TUA due to concern of potential risk of hand ischemia.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed ten patients who underwent coronary angiography and intervention via ulnar artery in the setting of failed ipsilateral transradial access. Patent hemostasis for both ulnar and radial arteries was achieved with novel modification of the TR band to compress both arteries at the same level of puncture sites.Results: TUA after failed ipsilateral transradial access was successful in all ten cases. All patients were followed within 7 days and there were no adverse complications such as ulnar artery occlusion, nerve injury, or hand ischemia.Conclusion: TUA maybe a safe and viable option when cross over is necessary from failed ipsilateral transradial access. Modification of the TR band for both radial and ulnar access site can achieve patent hemostasis effectively at the level of both puncture sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The radial artery is the access of choice in many catheterization labs around the world due to its proven benefits over the femoral artery access. There has been growing interest in the left radial artery. We sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety and complication rates of the left distal radial artery (ldTRA) access for cardiac catheterization.Methods: This is a single arm retrospective study evaluating the feasibility and safety of performing cardiac catheterization through ldTRA. The procedure was completed using standard diagnostic and guiding catheters. Hemostasis was achieved with a radial band. Feasibility was the ability to cannulate the distal left radial artery as well as completing the procedure without requiring an additional arterial access. The safety point included hematoma, bleeding or neuropathy.Results: ldTRA was attempted in 61 patients. 59 patients had successful completion of the procedure through ldTRA. Conversion occurred in 1 patient (1.7%), requiring an additional arterial access to complete the procedure. 34 patients (55.7%) required percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There was no access site bleeds post procedure, no hematomas, with 100% successful hemostasis with a radial hemostatic band. There were 2 cases requiring reaccess of the distal left radial artery access for repeat revascularization, with procedure success and good left radial artery patency.Conclusion: ldTRA is a safe and feasible arterial access in a radial experienced catheterization lab. ldTRA provides improved operator ergonomics and patient's comfort, in addition to the advantage of being able to cannulate the bypass grafts and with a very low risk of vascular complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of distal radial (DR) versus traditional radial (TR) approach during coronary angiography.Methods: Two hundred patients scheduled to undergo transradial coronary angiography were randomized between the two approaches. Primary endpoint of the study was switching to another access site due to inability of successful target artery cannulation. Secondary endpoints were time to cannulation, total procedure duration, number of attempts, number of skin punctures and duration of manual hemostasis. Secondary safety endpoints were the rate of moderate or severe spasm, arm hematoma EASY class III or more and radial artery occlusion at discharge. Quality of life endpoint was the patient's preference of cannulation method at 30 days.Results: The primary endpoint was met in 30 patients (30%) from the DR group and 2 patients (2%) from the TR group (p < 0.001). The time of cannulation was longer in the DR group compared to the TR group (269 ± 251 s vs 140 ± 161 s, p < 0.001), but this did not affect the total procedural duration (925 ± 896 s vs 831 ± 424 s, p = 0.494). The number of attempts and the number of skin punctures were more in the DR group compared to the TR group (6.8 ± 6.2 vs 3.4 ± 4.5, p < 0.001 and 2.4 ± 1.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.001, respectively). However, DR treated patients had faster manual hemostasis time compared to TR treated patients (568 ± 462 s vs 841 ± 574 s, p = 0.002). There were no differences recorded in the safety endpoints of moderate or severe spasm, EASY grade III or more radial hematomas or the incidence of radial artery occlusion after the procedure. Patients' preference to the randomized puncture sites was the same (79% vs 85%, p = 0.358).Conclusion: Distal radial approach is associated with lower successful cannulation rates and shorter manual hemostasis time compared to the traditional radial approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]