Design and rationale of the AngioSeal versus the Radial approach In acute coronary SyndromE (ARISE) trial: a randomized comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to prevent vascular access site complications in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients.

Background: Arterial access is a major site of bleeding complications after invasive coronary procedures. Among strategies to decrease vascular complications, the radial approach is an established one. Vascular closure devices provide more comfort to patients and decrease hemostasis and need for bed rest.

Transulnar approach as an alternative access site for coronary invasive procedures after transradial approach failure.

Background: Unsuccessful radial artery puncture, inability to advance the guide catheter to the ascending aorta, and inadequate guide catheter support represent mechanisms of transradial approach failure. With the rationale of sharing the same efficacy and safety promoted by radial access, the transulnar approach represents an alternative access site for percutaneous coronary procedures.

Methods: Between May 2007 and May 2012, 11,059 coronary invasive procedures were performed in a single institution: 10,108 by transradial approach (91.