Transulnarversus transradial artery access in patients undergoing cardiac procedures: a systematic review and...

Transradial artery access (TRA) is the favored approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary angiography (CAG). However, transulnar artery access (TUA) has emerged as an alternative, particularly when TRA is not feasible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TUA versus TRA in patients undergoing PCI and CAG.

From inception to August 2025, a systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I ² statistic.

Nine RCTs involving 6089 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in procedural success between TUA and TRA (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.06, P = 0.28, I ² = 99%). Similarly, puncture success rates were comparable (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-1.00, P = 0.06, I ² = 83%). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in puncture attempts or hematoma incidence, but TRA was associated with a shorter procedure time (MD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.27-1.50, P = 0.005).

TUA provides a viable alternative to TRA, with similar success rates and complication profiles. However, TRA remains superior in terms of procedure time. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and refine clinical guidelines.