ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019
Cath Lab Robotics: Paradigm Change in Interventional Cardiology?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A concentric tube catheter for endoluminal interventions, steered and imaged via magnetic resonance imaging.Communications engineering · 2026Article
- First case report of fully robotically assisted lithotripsy in heavily calcified left main stenosis.European heart journal. Case reports · 2023Article
- Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations.World journal of cardiology · 2022Review
- Robotics, imaging, and artificial intelligence in the catheterisation laboratory.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Concerns for management of STEMI patients in the COVID-19 era: a paradox phenomenon.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Article
- Research in Vascular Medicine: Where We Are and Where We Are Going.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review the contemporary evidence for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary and vascular interventions, discussing its current capabilities, limitations, and potential future applications. RECENT
findingsRobotic-assisted cardiovascular interventions significantly reduce radiation exposure and orthopedic strains for interventionalists, while maintaining high rates of device and clinical success. The PRECISE and CORA-PCI studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in increasingly complex coronary lesions. The RAPID study demonstrated similar findings in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). Subsequent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second-generation devices, with automations mimicking manual PCI techniques. While innovations such as telestenting continue to bring excitement to the field, major limitations remain-particularly the lack of randomized trials comparing robotic-assisted PCI with manual PCI. Robotic technology has successfully been applied to multiple cardiovascular procedures. There are limited data to evaluate outcomes with robotic-assisted PCI and other robotic-assisted cardiovascular procedures, but existing data show some promise of improving the precision of PCI while decreasing occupational hazards associated with radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.