Abstract: Aim. Was to assess the safety and efficiency of ulnar artery catheterization for diagnostic coronarography and endovascular treatment in patients with coronary arteries diseases. Materials and methods. The study includes 150 patients with coronary arteries disease middle aged 57±9 yrs, underwent diagnostic coronarography and ballon angioplasty with stenting from ulnar artery port (UAPo). Comparative group consisted of 150 patients middle age 58±9 with radial artery port (RAPo). Results. Technical success of procedure was 96,7 % (145 pts) in group with UAPo and 95,3% (143 pts) in RAPo group. Ulnar artery puncture failed in 5 cases (3,3%): in 3 (2%) cases due to ulnar artery spasm; in 1 case due to impossibility of guide insertion; in 1 case due to failure of ulnar artery puncture. In RAPo group puncture failed in 7 cases (4,7%): in 4 cases due to artery spasm; in 2 cases of guide insertion impossibility and in 2 cases of ulnar artery puncture failure. Time of puncture in UAPo group was 2,6±1,1 min, in RAPo - 2,6±1,2. Time of radiation was 5,5±5,2 min against 6,0±4,6 min in RAPo group. Time of procedure was 29,5±18,4 min in UAPo group against 32,9±16,8 min. The difference of indicators was doubtful in all cases Complications: thrombosis of ulnar artery appeared in 1 patients at the 2nd day after procedure, thrombosis of radial artery - in 4 cases (2,7%). Spasm of ulnar artery appeared more rarely, than radial artery: 6 cases (4%) against 25 cases (16,7%). In 1 case in RAPo group during puncture we noticed appearance of bradycardia and hypotonia. Local neurological complications were not noticed. Conclusion: the use of ulnar artery catheterization for diagnostics and treatment is safe and effective. The quantity of complication is lover than in RAPo group. References 1. Чазов Е.И., Бойцов С.А. Пути снижения сердечно-сосудистой смертности в стране. Кардиологический вестник. 2009; 1(1): 5-10. 2. Бойцов С.А., Руда М.Я. Национальный регистр острого коронарного синдрома: положение дел и перспективы. Кардиоваскул. тер. и профилак. 2007; 4: 115-20. 3. Dowling K., Todd D., Siskin G. et al. Early ambulation after diagnostic angiography using 4-F catheters and sheaths: a feasibility study. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2002; 9: 618-621. 4. Gall S., Tarique A., Natarajan A. et al. Rapid ambulation after coronary angiography via femoral artery access: a prospective study of 1,000 patients. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2006; 18: 106-108. 5. Pierfrancesco Agostoni, Giuseppe G. L. et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Systematic overview and metaanalysis of randomized trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004; 44: 349-356. 6. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardio- vasc Diagn. 1989; 16: 3-7. 7. Cooper C.J., El-Shiekh R.A., Cohen D.J., et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison. Am Heart J. 1999; 138: 430-6. 8. Mann J.T., Cubeddu G., Schneider J.E., et al. Right radial access for PTCA: a prospective study demonstrates reduced complications and hospital charges. J Invas. Cardiol. 1996; 8: 40-4D 9. Chatelain P., Arceo A., Rombaut E. et al. New device for compression of the radial artery after diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 1997; 40: 297-300. 10. Ochiai M., Sakai H., Takeshita S. et al. Efficacy of a new hemostatic device, Adapty, after transradial coronary angiography and intervention. J. Inva,sive Cardiol. 2000; 12: 618-622. 11. Yokoyama N., Takeshita S., Ochiai M., et al. Anatomic variations of the radial artery in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000; 49: 357-362. 12. Terashima M., Meguro T., Takeda H., et al. Percutaneous ulnar artery approach for coronary angiography: a preliminary report in nine patients. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2001; 53:410-4. 13.
