Current alternatives to traditional radial approach for coronary interventions: A randomized prospective study of the ulnar and distal radial approaches.

BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: To compare distal radial artery access and ulnar artery access as alternatives to traditional radial artery access regarding safety, efficacy, and success rate. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Coronary calcifications, the Achilles heel in coronary interventions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in severely calcified coronaries has been associated with higher rates of procedural complications, including myocardial infarction and death in addition to increased frequency of coronary revascularization on an intermediate and long-term basis. The SYNTAX score, which is designed to assess the complexity of coronary artery disease and aids in choosing a revascularization method, allocates two points per lesion when there is heavy calcification present on fluoroscopy. With the advent of novel multimodality imaging technologies, the detection and evaluation of coronary calcifications improved significantly over the last decade. Several tools are now available for modifying calcified lesions including different types of dedicated balloons and atherectomy devices, which may create some degree of confusion regarding the suitable application of each instrument. The aim of this review is to cover this vital topic from different aspects. First, we tried to provide an overview on the pathophysiology and types of coronary calcification and its risk factors. Then, we outlined the available imaging modalities for the evaluation of calcified coronary lesions, highlighting the points of strength and weakness of each of them. A comprehensive discussion of calcium-modifying techniques was elaborated, summarizing their mechanism of action, pros and cons, and possible complications. Finally, an integrated algorithm was proposed for the best management of calcified coronary lesions.