Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2026

Transradial Access Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Published on: September 20, 2020
Is the Complication Rate of Ulnar and Radial Approaches for Coronary Artery Intervention the Same?
Xile Bi1, Qingsheng Wang1, Defeng Liu1
11 Department of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, Qinhuangdao, Hebei, China.
Insights
Transulnar artery access for coronary procedures shows a lower rate of arterial occlusion compared to transradial access. While transulnar access reduces occlusion, it increases hematomas and discomfort.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Transradial artery (RA) access is common for coronary procedures.
- Transulnar artery (UA) access is an alternative approach.
- Comparing clinical outcomes between RA and UA access is important for patient safety and procedural success.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical outcomes of transulnar versus transradial artery approaches for coronary interventions.
- To determine the incidence of arterial occlusion and other complications associated with each approach.
Main Methods:
- A single-center, randomized study involving 538 patients undergoing coronary artery intervention.
- Patients were randomized to either the radial artery (RA) or ulnar artery (UA) group.
- Primary outcome was arterial occlusion of a forearm artery; secondary outcomes included hematomas and discomfort.
Main Results:
- Arterial occlusion occurred in 9.3% of the RA group versus 2.7% of the UA group (P = .007), with UA access showing a significantly lower rate.
- Higher risk of occlusion was associated with repeated procedures, smoking, and a low arterial to sheath diameter ratio.
- Transulnar access was associated with a higher incidence of hematomas (13.2% vs 5.8%, P = .01) and discomfort (15.5% vs 5.8%, P = .002).
Conclusions:
- Transulnar artery access is noninferior to transradial artery access for coronary procedures regarding arterial occlusion.
- The choice of access may depend on balancing the risk of occlusion against the potential for increased hematomas and discomfort.
Abstract:
We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent coronary artery intervention by the transulnar and transradial artery approaches. In this 1 year, single-center study, patients were randomized to either a radial artery (RA) or ulnar artery (UA) group. Of 538 patients, the primary outcome, arterial occlusion of a forearm artery, occurred in 21 of 225 patients in the RA group compared to 6 of 220 patients in the UA group (9.3% vs 2.7%, P = .007). The rate of arterial occlusion was significantly lower following ulnar access compared to radial (odds ratio [OR] = 3.85, P = .006). A higher risk of occlusion was associated with repeated procedures rather than a single procedure (OR = 5.14, P = .003), smoking (OR = 2.39, P = .04), and arterial to sheath diameter ratio of ≤1 (OR = 2.62, P = .03). However, the disadvantage of UA was an increase of incidence of hematomas (13.2% vs 5.8%, P = .01) and symptoms of discomfort (15.5% vs 5.8%, P = .002). In conclusion, the transulnar strategy proved to be noninferior to the transradial approach for coronary procedures ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979627).
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of radial pulse
The radial pulse, located at the wrist, is often the preferred site for assessing peripheral pulse because of its accessibility and dependability. The process of determining the radial pulse involves several steps:
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
Arteries of the Upper Limbs
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

