%0 Journal Article
%T Current alternatives to traditional radial approach for coronary interventions: A randomized prospective study of the ulnar and distal radial approaches.
%A Elwany M
%A Dawood M
%A Shakhlab A
%A Sadaka M
%A Sobhy M
%J Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
%V 104
%N 1
%D 2024 Jul 7
%M 38713865
%F 2.585
%R 10.1002/ccd.31071
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>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.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To compare distal radial artery access and ulnar artery access as alternatives to traditional radial artery access regarding safety, efficacy, and success rate.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>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.