Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The 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.
OBJECTIVE: To compare distal radial artery access and ulnar artery access as alternatives to traditional radial artery access regarding safety, efficacy, and success rate.
METHODS: Two-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.
RESULTS: Procedural 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.
OBJECTIVE: To compare distal radial artery access and ulnar artery access as alternatives to traditional radial artery access regarding safety, efficacy, and success rate.
METHODS: Two-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.
RESULTS: Procedural 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.
摘要：
背景：桡动脉是冠状动脉介入治疗的标准通道；然而，在冠状动脉旁路移植术或透析瘘管期间，有替代通道是必要的。尺骨和远端桡动脉通路已成为传统桡动脉的替代通路。
目的：比较桡动脉远端入路和尺动脉入路替代传统桡动脉入路的安全性，功效,和成功率。
方法：纳入200例患者(100例传统放射状[TRA]，50远端桡骨[DRA]和50尺骨）。介入动脉随访超声进行长达28天。
结果：手术成功率为97%，74%,在TRA中92%，DRA和尺骨组，分别(p<0.001)。在TRA中3例患者（3％）发生交叉，DRA组13例(26%),尺骨组4例(8%)(p<0.001)。交叉的最常见原因是动脉插管失败。关于插管时间,在TRA中，以秒为单位的平均访问时间为80.19±25.98、148.4±29.60、90.5±21.84，DRA和尺骨组，分别(p<0.001)。
结论：我们的研究得出结论，这些新方法被证明是传统径向方法的潜在替代品；然而，在成功率和插管时间方面，尺动脉通路被证明优于桡动脉远端通路。
目的：比较桡动脉远端入路和尺动脉入路替代传统桡动脉入路的安全性，功效,和成功率。
方法：纳入200例患者(100例传统放射状[TRA]，50远端桡骨[DRA]和50尺骨）。介入动脉随访超声进行长达28天。
结果：手术成功率为97%，74%,在TRA中92%，DRA和尺骨组，分别(p<0.001)。在TRA中3例患者（3％）发生交叉，DRA组13例(26%),尺骨组4例(8%)(p<0.001)。交叉的最常见原因是动脉插管失败。关于插管时间,在TRA中，以秒为单位的平均访问时间为80.19±25.98、148.4±29.60、90.5±21.84，DRA和尺骨组，分别(p<0.001)。
结论：我们的研究得出结论，这些新方法被证明是传统径向方法的潜在替代品；然而，在成功率和插管时间方面，尺动脉通路被证明优于桡动脉远端通路。
