Advertisement

Clinical and technical outcomes of robotic versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Published:February 12, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.02.002

      Highlights

      • Several robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) cohort studies show high technical success rates with minimal conversion.
      • R-PCI is associated with reduced contrast volume and fluoroscopy time.
      • Increased adoption of R-PCI could make it part of standard practice in the future.

      Summary

      Background

      : Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising medical procedure being used in clinical settings, which is thought to produce superior clinical and technical outcomes compared to the traditional manual approach. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare R-PCI to manual PCI (M-PCI).

      Methods

      : A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Medline (Ovid), Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and Embase from inception until the end of August 2021. Keywords used were ‘’Robotic PCI’’ and ‘’Robotic angioplasty.’’ Twenty studies were included for the qualitative analysis and seven for the pooled meta-analyses.

      Results

      : There was no significant difference between R-PCI and M-PCI groups in terms of clinical success (risk ratio: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, p=0.45) and procedure time (mean difference: 4.55, 95% CI: 0.08-9.02, p=0.05). Both contrast volume (mean difference: -15.27, 95% CI: -22.37 - -8.18, p<0.0001) and fluoroscopy time (mean difference: -1.26, 95% CI: -2.37 - -0.16, p=0.03) were significantly lower in the R-PCI group. Technical success rates in all studies were equal to or greater than 70% (mean: 93.1, SD: 7.8), with four studies reporting 100% success rates.

      Conclusion

      : Given the comparable clinical short-term safety of R-PCI to that of M-PCI and the high technical success rates across several large, high-quality cohort studies, the clinician can be reassured about the ability of robotic devices. However, randomized long-term data are warranted before making prospective conclusions on the clinical and technical merits of R-PCI and adopting it as part of standard coronary interventions.

      Graphical abstract

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases. https://www.who.int/health-topics/cardiovascular-diseases#tab=tab_1; [accessed 13.08.21].

      2. National Health Service. Coronary heart disease - NHS. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronary-heart-disease/ ; [accessed 13.08.21].

        • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
        Percutaneous coronary intervention - NHLBI, NIH. Natl Heart Lung.
        Blood Inst. 2016; 1 (Accessed August 13, 2021)
        • Stevenson A
        • Kirresh A
        • Ahmad M
        • Candilio L.
        Robotic-assisted PCI: The future of coronary intervention?.
        Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2021; 6 (Published onlineS1553-8389): 00185-00188https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARREV.2021.03.025
        • Maor E
        • Eleid MF
        • Gulati R
        • Lerman A
        • Sandhu GS.
        Current and future use of robotic devices to perform percutaneous coronary interventions: a review.
        J Am Heart Assoc Cardiovasc Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017; 6: 7https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006239
        • Kagiyama K
        • Mitsutake Y
        • Ueno T
        • Sakai S
        • Nakamura T
        • Yamaji K
        • et al.
        Successful introduction of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention system into Japanese clinical practice: a first-year survey at single center.
        Heart Vessels. 2021; 36: 955-964https://doi.org/10.1007/S00380-021-01782-6
        • De Silva K
        • A Myat
        • Strange J
        • Weisz G
        Iterative Improvement and marginal gains in coronary revascularisation: is robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention the new hope?.
        Interv Cardiol Rev. 2020; 15: 18https://doi.org/10.15420/ICR.2020.24
        • Mahmud E
        • Naghi J
        • Ang L
        • Harrison J
        • Behnamfar O
        • Pourdjabbar A
        • et al.
        Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: Results of the CORA-PCI Study (Complex Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention).
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10: 1320-1327https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCIN.2017.03.050
        • Ragosta M
        • Singh KP.
        Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale, implementation, case selection and limitations of current technology.
        J Clin Med. 2018; 7: 23https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM7020023
        • Granada J
        • Delgado J
        • Uribe M
        • Fernandez A
        • Blanco G
        • Leon M
        • et al.
        First-in-human evaluation of a novel robotic-assisted coronary angioplasty system.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4: 460-465https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCIN.2010.12.007
        • Beyar R
        • Gruberg L
        • Deleanu D
        • Roguin A
        • Almagor Y
        • Cohen S
        • et al.
        Remote-control percutaneous coronary interventions: concept, validation, and first-in-humans pilot clinical trial.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 296-300https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2005.09.024
        • Smilowitz N
        • Moses J
        • Sosa F
        • Lerman B
        • Qureshi Y
        • Dalton K
        • et al.
        Robotic-enhanced PCI compared to the traditional manual approach.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2014; 26: 318-321
        • Madder R
        • VanOosterhout S
        • Jacoby M
        • Collins S
        • Borgman A
        • Mulder A
        • et al.
        Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study).
        EuroIntervention. 2017; 12: 1569-1576https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00363
        • Weisz G
        • Metzger D
        • Caputo R
        • Delgado J
        • Marshall J
        • Vetrovec G
        • et al.
        Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 1596-1600https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2012.12.045
        • Madder R
        • Campbell P
        • Mahmud E
        • Wohns D
        • Stys T
        • Caputo R
        • et al.
        Multi-center post-market registry for the evaluation of robotic assisted PCI.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67: 224https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(16)30225-x
        • Al Nooryani A
        • Elabbassi W
        • Markovic M
        • Kerfes G
        • Bhatia A
        • Abudaqa L
        • et al.
        The use of robotic-assisted PCI for the treatment of patients with ischemic heart disease.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68: B146https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2016.09.487
        • Page MJ
        • McKenzie JE
        • Bossuyt PM
        • Boutron I
        • Hoffman TC
        • Mulrow CD
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: 71https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.N71
        • Ryan TJ
        • Faxon DP
        • Gunnar RM
        • Kennedy JW
        • King SB
        • Loop FD
        • et al.
        Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty).
        Circulation. 1988; 78: 486-502https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.78.2.486
        • Ellis SG
        • Vandormael MG
        • Cowley MJ
        • DiSciascio G
        • Deligonul U
        • Topol EJ
        • et al.
        Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group.
        Circulation. 1990; 82: 1193-1202https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.82.4.1193
        • Wells G
        • Shea B
        • O'Connell D
        • Peterson J
        • Welch V
        • Losos M
        • et al.
        The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.
        Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2021 (http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp)
        • Wan X
        • Wang W
        • Liu J
        • Tong T.
        Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 135https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135
        • Mangels D
        • Fregoso A
        • Ang L
        • Mahmud E
        Resource utilization during elective robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention - PubMed.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2020; 32 (Accessed August 22, 2021): 321-325
        • Walters D
        • Reeves R
        • Patel M
        • Naghi J
        • Ang L
        • Mahmud E
        Complex robotic compared to manual coronary interventions: 6- and 12-month outcomes.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93: 613-617https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.27867
        • Weisz G
        • Smilowitz NR
        • Metzger DC
        • Caputo R
        • Delgado J
        • Marshall J
        • et al.
        The association between experience and proficiency with robotic-enhanced coronary intervention-insights from the PRECISE multi-center study.
        Acute Card Care. 2014; 16: 37-40https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2014.889314
        • Bezerra HG
        • Mehanna E
        • Vetrovec GW
        • Costa MA
        • Weisz G.
        Longitudinal geographic miss (LGM) in robotic assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary interventions.
        J Interv Cardiol. 2015; 28: 449-455https://doi.org/10.1111/JOIC.12231
        • Madder RD
        • VanOosterhout S
        • Mulder A
        • Elmore M
        • Campbell J
        • Borgman A
        • et al.
        Impact of robotics and a suspended lead suit on physician radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary intervention.
        Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2017; 18: 190-196https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARREV.2016.12.011
        • Patel TM
        • Shah SC
        • Soni YY
        • Radadiya RC
        • Patel GA
        • Tiwari PO
        • et al.
        Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score-matched analysis of a large cohort.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13e008888https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008888
        • Walters D
        • Patel M
        • Reeves R
        • Ang L
        • Al Khiami B
        • Mahmud E
        Planned robotic chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: feasibility report - PubMed.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2020; 32: 201-205
        • Allencherril J
        • Hyman D
        • Loya A
        • Jneid H
        • Alam M.
        Outcomes of robotically assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2019; 31: 199-203
        • Dou K
        • Song C
        • Mu C
        • Yang W
        • Zhu C
        • Feng L
        • et al.
        Feasibility and safety of robotic PCI in China: first in man experience in Asia.
        J Geriatr Cardiol. 2019; 16: 401-405https://doi.org/10.11909/J.ISSN.1671-5411.2019.05.004
        • Mahmud E
        • Dominguez A
        • Bahadorani J.
        First-in-human robotic percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main stenosis.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88: 565-570https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.26550
        • Patel T
        • Shah S
        • Pancholy S.
        Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience.
        EClinicalMedicine. 2019; 14: 53-58https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECLINM.2019.07.017
        • Dominguez A
        • Reeves R
        • Bahadorani J
        • Patel M
        • Mahmud E
        Feasibility of complex robotic percutaneous coronary intervention.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64: B44https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2014.07.182
        • Harrison J
        • Ang L
        • Naghi J
        • Behnamfar O
        • Pourdjabbar A
        • Patel M
        • et al.
        Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: Reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion.
        Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018; 19: 526-531https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARREV.2017.11.003
        • Smitson CC
        • Ang L
        • Pourdjabbar A
        • Reeves R
        • Patel M
        • Mahmud E
        Safety and feasibility of a novel, second-generation robotic-assisted system for percutaneous coronary intervention: first-in-human report.
        J Invasive Cardiol. 2018; 30: 152-156
        • Hirai T
        • Kearney K
        • Kataruka A
        • Gosch K
        • Brandt H
        • Nicholson W
        • et al.
        Initial report of safety and procedure duration of robotic-assisted chronic total occlusion coronary intervention.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 95: 165-169https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.28477
        • Caixeta A
        • Mehran R.
        Evidence-based management of patients undergoing PCI: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 75: S15-S20https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.22376