The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2022
Feasibility and Safety of Ipsilateral Ulnar Access in Cases of Impossibility or Failure of Radial Access for Coronary Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Duarte Paulo Vinicios Falcão, Cortes Leandro Assunção, de Almeida Sampaio Fernanda Barbosa, Barroso Julia Machado, da Silveira Gustavo Medeiros, Nascif Gibran Bhering, Filho Ariovaldo Oliveira, Ribeiro Marcelo Lemos, Salles Marcos Mendes, De Lorenzo Andrea
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of using the ulnar access in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, in the failure or contraindication of ipsilateral radial access.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated, in a quaternary hospital, patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention by transulnar approach, in case of failure or contraindication to the ipsilateral radial access.
RESULTS: Between August 2018 and March 2020, of the 5,916 invasive coronary procedures performed, 2.2% were by transulnar approach. In the 130 patients evaluated, the indication for use of the transulnar approach was predominantly the low-amplitude or difficult to palpate radial pulse when compared to the ulnar artery (39.2%), followed by occlusion of the ipsilateral radial artery (33.1%). Complications of using the transulnar approach were superficial hematoma or low-degree muscle infiltration with extension ≤10 cm, in 6 patients (4.5%), and in 5 cases (3.8%) hematoma >10 cm. There was a case of transient ischemia of the hand due to forearm hematoma, treated conservatively. No cases of arterial thrombosis, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, symptomatic ulnar artery occlusion or ulnar nerve injury were observed after 30-day follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The use of ipsilateral transulnar access is a feasible and safe alternative in cases where radial access would be impossible. This access site is associated with a low incidence of complications, which, when present, are most commonly associated with the occurance of spasm after the attempted radial puncture.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated, in a quaternary hospital, patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention by transulnar approach, in case of failure or contraindication to the ipsilateral radial access.
RESULTS: Between August 2018 and March 2020, of the 5,916 invasive coronary procedures performed, 2.2% were by transulnar approach. In the 130 patients evaluated, the indication for use of the transulnar approach was predominantly the low-amplitude or difficult to palpate radial pulse when compared to the ulnar artery (39.2%), followed by occlusion of the ipsilateral radial artery (33.1%). Complications of using the transulnar approach were superficial hematoma or low-degree muscle infiltration with extension ≤10 cm, in 6 patients (4.5%), and in 5 cases (3.8%) hematoma >10 cm. There was a case of transient ischemia of the hand due to forearm hematoma, treated conservatively. No cases of arterial thrombosis, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, symptomatic ulnar artery occlusion or ulnar nerve injury were observed after 30-day follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The use of ipsilateral transulnar access is a feasible and safe alternative in cases where radial access would be impossible. This access site is associated with a low incidence of complications, which, when present, are most commonly associated with the occurance of spasm after the attempted radial puncture.