Safety and feasibility of robotic assisted percutaneous coronary intervention compared to standard percutaneous coronary intervention- a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: Robotically assisted PCI offers a great alternative to S–PCI. This has gained even more relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic era however safety of R–PCI compared to S–PCI has not been studied well. This study explores the safety and efficacy of robotically assisted PCI (R–PCI) compared to standard PCI (S–PCI) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Google scholar databases were searched for studies comparing R–PCI to S–PCI. Outcomes included clinical success, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast use and radiation exposure. Results: Theauthors included 5 studies comprising 1555 patients in this meta-analysis. Clinical success was comparable in both arms (p = 0.91). Procedure time was significantly longer in R–PCI group (risk ratio: 5.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.85 to 9.91, p = 0.003). Compared to S–PCI, patients in R–PCI group had lower contrast use (meandifference: −19.88, 95% confidence interval: −21.43 to −18.33, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (mean difference:-1.82, 95% confidence interval: −3.64 to −0.00, p = 0.05) and radiation exposure (mean difference:-457.8, 95% confidence interval: −707.14 to −208.14, p < 0.001). Conclusion: R–PCI can achieve similar success as S–PCI at the expense of longer procedural times. However, radiation exposure and contrast exposure were lower in the R–PCI arm.

Keywords

• Robotic PCI
• Robotic assisted PCI
• CorePath
• Coronary artery disease
• Coronary angiography
• Radiation exposure