ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2022
Safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention program in a tertiary center: a prospective study.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic 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
- Global trends and emerging frontiers in robot-assisted vascular intervention: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluating Patients' Profiles and Procedural Outcomes of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Single Centre Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Safety of the ETcath200 Robotic PCI System for Complex Coronary Lesions: A Prospective Single-Center Study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 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
- Features and Limitations of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (R-PCI): A Systematic Review of R-PCI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: experience in Switzerland.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a novel technology that permits remote operation of interventional devices. However, little is known about the safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic PCI program in a hospital already experienced in traditional coronary angioplasty. Methods: Prospective single-arm survey to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted PCI in comparison to pre-defined performance goals. The study cohort comprised all consecutive cases treated with robotic PCI since its introduction. The safety primary endpoint was a composite of (I) overall death or (II) non-fatal adverse events related to target vessel complications (stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, vessel perforation or cardiac tamponade, or repeat invasive treatment) during the index hospitalization. The efficacy primary endpoint was robotic-assisted procedural success, a composite of (I) successful dilatation of the target lesion and (II) successful robotic assistance, defined as absent non-planned manual conversion. Results: A total of 83 patients and 112 lesions were prospectively enrolled. The rate of angiographic success was 99.1%. From these, 97 lesions (86.6%) were treated with only robotic PCI or with hybrid according to the pre-interventional plan. The rates of efficacy and safety primary endpoints were 85.7% and 2.4% respectively (P<0.01 for non-inferior to the pre-defined performance threshold). Conclusions: Introduction of robotic-assisted PCI in a tertiary center was associated with safe and effective results, comparable to pre-defined goals of optimal performance.
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.