Observational studyCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2023
Periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention used in the intravascular imaging guidance.
Observational study in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 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
- 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
- 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
- Advances in Technology and Technique in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Radiation-Free Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Myth or Reality?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Robotic Systems in Cardiovascular Interventions: Evolving Platforms and the Path Forward.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic management in atrial fibrillation patients following percutaneous coronary intervention: A clinical review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Review
- Features and Limitations of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (R-PCI): A Systematic Review of R-PCI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Narrative review of latest research progress about robotic percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024Article
- A case of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention using a coronary intravascular lithotripsy catheter.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2023Article
- 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
- Prognostic Factors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, there have been several reports on robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI), but few studies have been conducted on R-PCI performed under intravascular imaging guidance. To elucidate the periprocedural and postoperative 30-day outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided R-PCI, we performed a retrospective observational study on all patients in 102 consecutive cases who underwent R-PCI under intravascular imaging guidance at a single center in Japan from June 12, 2019 to February 18, 2021. The primary end point was 30-day survival, and the secondary end point was the incidence of complications. Intravascular imaging-guided R-PCI was performed 110 times in total on 125 lesions. The medians of procedural time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, patient entrance skin dose, and radiation exposure to the main operator were 49 min, 16 min, 67 mL, 0.62 Gy, and 0 μSv, respectively. Furthermore, 60.0% of target lesion branches were American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association classification type B2 or type C. However, in all cases, lesion dilatation was successful, and the final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade was 3. The combination of manual operation was required in 12.7% of all cases, but 30-day survival was confirmed in all cases. There were two problems at the puncture site. One small distal branch artery dissection occurred due to manual operation, but no cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) occurred and no target lesion restenosis was observed within 30 days of R-PCI. Hence, R-PCI using intravascular imaging demonstrated highly satisfactory treatment outcomes, and no complication caused by robotic operation was observed.
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.