Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the difference in impact between distal transradial access (dTRA) and classical transradial access (TRA) on vascular function using flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) following coronary diagnostic and therapeutic catheterizations.
Methods: The analysis involves a non-randomized inclusion of patients undergoing either diagnostic or elective percutaneous coronary intervention, using a dTRA access or a conventional standard TRA. Two hours after the procedure ended, the endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery was measured by ultrasound.
Results: A total number of 50 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (7.20% vs 6.99%, p < 0.09 for non-inferiority). Additionally, there were higher baseline values observed for BA diameters in the conventional approach group.
Regarding the other secondary endpoints, there were no major access site complications, radial occlusion, in-hospital major bleeding or severe arterial spasm recorded in both groups.
Conclusion: Compared to conventional TRA, accessing distal radial artery for diagnostic and therapeutic coronary interventions has the same impact on short-term vascular endothelial function and was safely performed without any major vascular complications.
