Translunar Access, an Alternative Worth Considering

Título original: Transulnar versus transradial access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Khagendra Dahal. Et al. Catheterization and cardiovascular Intervention 2016:87;857-865

Courtesy of Dr. Carlos Fava.

Transradial access site (TRA) has been shown beneficial over the femoral (TFA), but there is little information on translunar access (TUA) that could offer the same benefits as TFA with no need for femoral cross-over.

5 randomized studies were included with a total 2744 patients undergoing coronary catheterization vs PCI. 1384 of these patients used TUA and 1360, TRA.

Follow up was at 30 days and one year.

MACE was similar between access sites (3.1% vs. 3.5%; RR 0.87, CI 95 0.56 to 1.36; p=0.5), There was no difference in access site related complications (14.9% vs. 15.4%; RR 0.92 (0.67-1.27); p=0.62) neither were there differences in spasm or occlusion rates. The presence of pseudoaneurysms, fistula or transradial /translunar nerve injury was similar and very low in both groups. TUA presented higher cross-over rate and number of punctures than TRA (14% vs. 3.8% p=0.003 and 1.57 vs. 1.4 p=0.0002 respectively) with no difference in access time, fluoroscopy time or contrast volume.

Conclusion
In patients that require coronary catheterization or PCI, translunar and transradial access sites have similar efficacy and safety except for a higher rate of punctures and femoral cross-over with TUA.

Editorial Comment
This analysis is very promising since it gives us the opportunity to count with another access site to do our procedures as safely and effectively as with TRA.

The higher number of punctures and cross-over may be related to the little use of this access site and the necessary learning curve, as was initially with TRA:

Courtesy of Dr. Carlos Fava.
Interventional Cardiologist
Favaloro Foundation – Buenos Aires

More articles by this author

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

ACC-2025 Congress Second Day Key Studies

BHF PROTECT-TAVI (Kharbanda RK, Kennedy J, Dodd M, et al.)The largest randomized  trial carried out across 33 UK centers between 2020 and 2024, assessing...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...