Abstract
We performed a prospective observational study of 215 patients (58 ± 11 years) and compared the outcomes of ultrasound guided ulnar (n = 98, 45.6%) vs. radial (n = 117, 54.4%) cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients selected by an ultrasound based algorithm. Primary endpoints included the number of access attempts and conversion to femoral access. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, in-stent restenosis, and access site complications.No significant difference was found in the primary endpoints between radial or ulnar. Ulnar access showed no significant hematomas. Therefore, ulnar PCI is a feasible alternative.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
