ArticleHeart and vessels2021
Successful introduction of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention system into Japanese clinical practice: a first-year survey at single center.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Operator radiation burden and periprocedural outcomes in robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Visceral Interventions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility during early implementation of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Procedural and Clinical Outcomes of Second-generation Robotic-assisted versus Manual Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A 1-year Follow-up Study.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Final Results of the PRECISION and PRECISION GRX Studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Cardiovascular Interventions.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Advancements in Cardiac Catheterization Safety: Novel Radiation Protection Approaches Redefining Occupational Health.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Review
- Robotic Systems in Cardiovascular Interventions: Evolving Platforms and the Path Forward.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Features and Limitations of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (R-PCI): A Systematic Review of R-PCI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention used in the intravascular imaging guidance.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2023Observational
- Latest Developments in Robotic Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023Review
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: experience in Switzerland.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Association of coronary plaque morphology with inflammatory biomarkers and target lesion revascularization in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: an optical coherence tomography study.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2023Article
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of cardiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Japan, a robotic-assisted PCI (R-PCI) system, the CorPath GRX System (Corindus Inc.), has been approved for clinical use in 2018, which is the first introduction of R-PCI into Japan. In this study, the clinical performance of the R-PCI system in the initial year at Kurume University Hospital was evaluated comparing with conventional manual PCI (M-PCI). A total of 30 R-PCI and 77 M-PCI procedures performed between April 2019 and March 2020, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical success defined as < 30% residual stenosis without in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes were fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), amount of radiation exposure to operators and assistants, procedural time, and contrast volume. Propensity-matching technique was used to match each R-PCI lesion to the nearest M-PCI lesion without replacement. After propensity score matching, 30 R-PCI procedures in 28 patients and 37 M-PCI procedures in 35 patients were analyzed. Clinical success rate with R-PCI was favorable and comparable to M-PCI (93.3 vs. 94.6%, p = 0.97), without any in-hospital MACE. The operator radiation exposure was significantly lower in R-PCI (0 vs. 24.5 µSV, p < 0.0001). Radiation exposure to the patients was tended to be reduced by R-PCI (DAP: 77.6 vs. 100.2 Gycm
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.