This study aims to describe our experience and safety considerations associated with the use of the transulnar approach in neurointerventional procedures when radial access is not feasible.
Methods
A prospective exploratory analysis was conducted on 35 patients who underwent diagnostic or therapeutic neuroangiography via transulnar approach due to radial access limitations. Technical aspects of the transulnar approach, patient demographics, procedural details, and complications were documented. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics software.
Results
Among the 35 procedures, the transulnar approach demonstrated a high success rate (97.14%), with only one procedural failure. Indications for transulnar access included larger ulnar artery caliber (46%), radial artery spasm (37%), severe tortuosity of the radial artery (17%), and other anatomical considerations. Complications were rare, with only two access-related complications observed: a type I hematoma and ulnar artery vasospasm. No major bleeding episodes occurred, highlighting the safety profile of transulnar access.
Conclusion
The transulnar approach represents a feasible alternative for neurointerventional procedures when radial access is not achievable. It offers high success rates and minimal complications, comparable to the radial approach. Anatomical considerations, safety profile, and patient preference support its consideration as a secondary option in neurointerventional practice. Further research and larger studies are warranted to validate its efficacy and safety in a broader patient population.
MasonPJShahBTamis-HollandJE, et al.An update on radial artery access and best practices for transradial coronary angiography and intervention in acute coronary syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Vol. 11, Circulation: cardiovascular Interventions. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2018.
3.
De AndradePBTebetMANogueiraEF, et al.Transulnar approach as an alternative access site for coronary invasive procedures after transradial approach failure. Am Heart J2012; 164(4): 462–467.
4.
DashkoffNDashkoffPBZizziJA, et al.Ulnar artery cannulation for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: case reports and anatomic considerations. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2002; 55(1): 93–96.
5.
TerashimaMMeguroTTakedaH, et al.Percutaneous ulnar artery approach for coronary angiography: a preliminary report in nine patients. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2001; 53(3): 410–414.
6.
KedevSZafirovskaBDharmaS, et al.Safety and feasibility of transulnar catheterization when ipsilateral radial access is not available. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2014; 83(1): E51–E60.
LanspaTJWilliamsMAHeirigsRL. Effectiveness of ulnar artery catheterization after failed attempt to cannulate a radial artery. Am J Cardiol2005; 95(12): 1529–1530.
9.
VassilevDSmilkovaDGilR. Ulnar artery as access site for cardiac catheterization: anatomical considerations. J Intervent Cardiol2008; 21(1): 56–60.
10.
LimbrunoURossiniRDe CarloM, et al.Percutaneous ulnar artery approach for primary coronary angioplasty: safety and feasibility. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2004; 61(1): 56–59.
11.
LawsonMFVelatGJFargenKM, et al.Direct radial artery access with the 070 neuron guide catheter for aneurysm coiling: a novel application of the neuron catheter for cerebral interventions. Neurosurgery2012; 71(SUPPL.2): onsE329–onsE334.
12.
MatsumotoYHokamaMNagashimaH, et al.Transradial approach for selective cerebral angiography: technical note. Neurol Res2000; 22(6): 605–608.
13.
NoharaAMKallmesDF. Transradial cerebral angiography: technique and outcomes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2003 Jun-Jul;24(6): 1247–50. PMID: 12812964; PMCID: PMC8149003.
14.
SattiSRVanceAZSivapathamT. Radial access for cerebrovascular procedures: case report and technical note. Intervent Neuroradiol2016; 22(2): 227–235.
15.
BendokBRPrzybyloJHParkinsonR, et al.Neuroendovascular interventions for intracranial posterior circulation disease via the transradial approach: technical case report. Neurosurgery2005; 56(3): 626.
16.
LincoffAMBittlJAHarringtonRA, et al.Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA2003; 289: 853–863.
17.
BertrandOFDe LarochellièreRRodés-CabauJ, et al.A randomized study comparing same-day home discharge and abciximab bolus only to overnight hospitalization and abciximab bolus and infusion after transradial coronary stent implantation. Circulation2006; 114(24): 2636–2643.
18.
SnellingBMSurSShahSS, et al.Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerventional Surg2018; 10(9): 874–881.
19.
MaudAKhatriRChaudhryMRA, et al.Transradial access results in faster skin puncture to reperfusion time than transfemoral access in posterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy. J Vasc Interv Neurol2019 May; 10(3): 53–57. PMID: 31308872; PMCID: PMC6613485.
AptecarEPernesJMChabane-ChaouchM, et al.Transulnar versus transradial artery approach for coronary angioplasty: the PCVI-Cuba study. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2006; 67(5): 711–720.
23.
YokoyamaNTakeshitaSOchiaiM, et al.Anatomic variations of the radial artery in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv2000; 49: 357–362.
24.
GayedAYamadaRBhatiaS, et al.Society of interventional radiology quality improvement standards on radial artery access. J Vasc Intervent Radiol2021; 32(5): 761.e1–761.e21.
25.
HahalisGTsigkasGXanthopoulouI, et al.Transulnar compared with transradial artery approach as a default strategy for coronary procedures: a randomized trial: the transulnar or transradial instead of coronary transfemoral angiographies study (the AURA of ARTEMIS study). Circ Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6(3): 252–261.
26.
BernatIHorakDStasekJ, et al.ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol2014; 63(10): 964–972.
27.
RomagnoliEBiondi-ZoccaiGSciahbasiA, et al.Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in st-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the rifle-steacs (radial versus femoral randomized investigation in st-elevation acute coronary syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 60(24): 2481–2489.
28.
GoyalMDemchukAMMenonBK, et al.Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med2015; 372(11): 1019–1030.
29.
SaverJLGoyalMBonafeA, et al.Stent-retriever thrombectomy after intravenous t-PA vs. t-PA alone in stroke. N Engl J Med2015; 372(24): 2285–2295.
30.
BhatiaSHarwardSHSinhaVK, et al.Prostate artery embolization via transradial or transulnar versus transfemoral arterial access: technical results. J Vasc Intervent Radiol2017; 28(6): 898–905.
31.
BoncoraglioACaltabianoGFotiPV, et al.Distal radial artery: the last extreme rescue arterial access for interventional radiologists?SAGE Open Med Case Rep2019; 7: 2050313X18823918.
32.
PatelPMajmundarNBachI, et al.Distal transradial access in the anatomic snuffbox for diagnostic cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2019; 40(9): 1526–1528.
33.
GrassoMBMcLaughlinJAmendolaMF, et al.Complications following ulnar artery catheterization for coronary angiography. Hand2022.
34.
Rodríguez-OlivaresRGarcía-TouchardAFernández-DíazJA, et al.Transulnar approach with ipsilateral radial occlusion: forearm vascular anatomical description and long-term follow-up. Rev Esp Cardiol2014; 67(10): 854–855.
35.
LiuLBCedilloMABishayV, et al.Patient experience and preference in transradial versus transfemoral access during transarterial radioembolization: a randomized single-center trial. J Vasc Intervent Radiol2019; 30(3): 414–420.
36.
KhannaOSweidAMouchtourisN, et al.Radial artery catheterization for neuroendovascular procedures: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction measures. Stroke2019; 50(9): 2587–2590.
