Despite the increasing worldwide adoption of the transradial access site, the ulnar artery (UA) only very infrequently serves as a primary option for coronary procedures. In contrast to the uncertainty surrounding previous reports regarding the feasibility and safety, recent data from larger registries and randomized trials provide more conclusive evidence that the transulnar route may be safely selected as an alternative arterial access approach. However, a default transulnar strategy appears time-consuming and is associated with higher crossover rates compared with the radial artery (RA). Once arterial access is obtained, the likelihood of a successful coronary procedure is high and similar between the two forearm arteries. The UA has similar flow-mediating vasodilating properties with and seems at least as vulnerable as the RA with regard to incident occlusion, with UA occlusion (UAO) rates being probably higher than previously anticipated. A learning curve effect may not be apparent for crossover rates among experienced radialists, but increasing experience is associated with reduction in the fluoroscopy time, contrast volume and frequency of large hematoma formation. The UA may represents an important alternative access site for coronary procedures, and experienced radial operators should obtain additional skills to perform the transulnar approach. Nevertheless, in view of this method's lower feasibility compared to the RA, an initial ulnar access strategy should be reserved for carefully selected patients to ensure satisfactory cannulation rates.
Keywords: Coronary catheterization; Radial artery; Transfemoral approach; Transradial; Transulnar; Ulnar artery.
Copyright © 2016 Hellenic Cardiological Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.