Gokhroo Rajendra, Bisht Devendra, Padmanabhan Deepak, Gupta Sajal, Kishor Kamal, Ranwa Bhanwar
Post Graduate Department of Cardiology, JLN Medical College & Associated Group of Hospitals, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305 001, India.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jul;86(1):42-8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25806. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
The ulnar artery is rarely selected for cardiac catheterization despite the expanding use of the transradial access (TRA). We tried to compare default transulnar access (TUA) with TRA in terms of feasibility and safety.
This was a prospective, open label, single center, observational study. We analyzed a total of 410 patients with normal Allen's test, who were then scheduled for coronary angiography through TUA with ad hoc PCI if necessary. Procedures were performed by a single operator who had an adequate transradial experience (≥150 transradial coronary procedures per year) but not trained in transulnar procedures. We analyzed observed findings with a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing TRA angiography under a previous study done at our center. We also performed selective ulnar arteriography of 200 patients, through radial route, to predict the bottlenecks of TUA.
There is no statistically significant difference among the number of attempts made till the successful puncture, the total procedure time and the total fluoroscopy time for either radial or ulnar access angiography by an experienced operator (P > 0.05). However, the time taken in arterial access is statistically significant in the initial learning curve for the same (P < 0.05). On the contrary, the arterial access time, the total procedure time, and the total fluoroscopy time, all are statistically significant for the inexperienced operator (P < 0.05). There is a negligible incidence of nonmaneuverable anatomic obstruction in the real-world scenario in TUA, and so fear of the same should not impede the use of this route. Vasospasm in the use of this route is also not different from the radial route, with the experience of the operator.
For an experienced operator, TUA is a safe and also an effective alternative to TRA in terms of feasibility and safety.
尽管经桡动脉途径(TRA)的应用日益广泛,但尺动脉很少被选用于心脏导管插入术。我们试图在可行性和安全性方面比较常规经尺动脉途径(TUA)和TRA。
这是一项前瞻性、开放标签、单中心观察性研究。我们分析了总共410例艾伦试验正常的患者,这些患者随后计划通过TUA进行冠状动脉造影,必要时进行临时经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)。手术由一名有足够经桡动脉经验(每年≥150例经桡动脉冠状动脉手术)但未接受过经尺动脉手术培训的操作者进行。我们分析了在我们中心之前一项研究中接受TRA血管造影的患者回顾性队列的观察结果。我们还通过桡动脉途径对200例患者进行了选择性尺动脉造影,以预测TUA的瓶颈。
对于有经验的操作者,无论是桡动脉还是尺动脉途径血管造影,直至成功穿刺的尝试次数、总手术时间和总透视时间之间均无统计学显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,在相同操作的初始学习曲线中,动脉穿刺时间具有统计学显著性(P<0.05)。相反,对于经验不足的操作者,动脉穿刺时间、总手术时间和总透视时间均具有统计学显著性(P<0.05)。在实际临床中,TUA不可操作的解剖性梗阻发生率可忽略不计,因此对其的担忧不应妨碍该途径的使用。使用该途径时的血管痉挛情况与桡动脉途径相比,也不因操作者经验而异。
对于有经验的操作者,就可行性和安全性而言,TUA是TRA的一种安全且有效的替代方法。