SynthesisIndian heart journal
Safety and feasibility of robotic assisted percutaneous coronary intervention compared to standard percutaneous coronary intervention- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- Stretching to Reduce Pain-Related Disability Among Echocardiographic and Interventional Laboratory Employees-A Pilot Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Digital variance angiography in patients undergoing lower limb arterial recanalization: cost-effectiveness analysis within the English healthcare setting.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI): Time to focus on the pros and cons.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRobotically 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).
methodsPubMed, 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.
resultsTheauthors 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).
conclusionR-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.
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.