Safety and feasibility of ulnar artery access for neuroangiography and neurointervention: a case series

Abstract

BackgroundRadial access has become popular among neurointerventionalists because it has favorable risk profiles compared with femoral access. Difficulties in accessing or navigating the radial artery have been viewed as a reason to convert to femoral access, but ulnar artery access may prevent complications associated with transfemoral procedures.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and feasibility of ulnar access for neurointerventions and diagnostic neuroangiographic procedures.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent diagnostic angiography or neurointerventional procedures via ulnar access between July 1, 2019 and April 15, 2020 were included. Data recorded were demographics, procedure indication, devices, technique, and complications. Descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsUlnar artery access was obtained for 21 procedures in 18 patients (mean age 70.3±7.8 years; nine men). Procedures included 13 diagnostic angiograms and eight neurointerventions (3 left middle meningeal artery embolization, 1 of which was aborted; 2 carotid artery stenting; 2 angioplasty; 1 mechanical thrombectomy for in-stent thrombosis). A right-sided approach with ultrasound guidance was used for all cases except one. Indications included small caliber radial artery (n=9), radial artery occlusion (n=10), and radial artery preservation for potential bypass (n=2). A 5-French slender sheath was used for diagnostic angiography; a 6-French slender sheath was used for neurointerventions. No case required conversion to femoral access. Two patients had minor hematomas after the procedure; one other had ulnar artery occlusion on 30-day ultrasonography.ConclusionUlnar access is safe and feasible for diagnostic and interventional neuroangiographic procedures. It provides a useful alternative to radial access, potentially avoiding complications associated with femoral access.