ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2024
Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 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
- 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
- Global research trends in robotic applications in cardiovascular medicine: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Do robot-assisted percutaneous vascular interventions improve effectiveness and safety compared with manual procedures: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Clinical validation and literature review of robot-assisted cerebral angiography.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 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
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Manual support during robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Article
- One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using the AVIAR 2.0 System: A Prospective, Multi-Center, Single-Arm, Open, Investigator-Initiated, Post-Approval Clinical Trial.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- 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
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: the future or the past?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) has proven to be feasible and safe. Comparative analyses of rPCI versus manual PCI (mPCI) are scarce.
aimsWe aimed to investigate procedural aspects and outcomes of rPCI using the second-generation CorPath GRX Vascular Robotic System compared with mPCI in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome.
methodsFrom January to April 2021, 70 patients underwent rPCI at the University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and were recruited into the INTERCATH study. By propensity score matching, a control cohort of 210 patients who underwent mPCI from 2015-2021 was identified. Co-primary endpoints were one-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a composite of cardiovascular death, unplanned target lesion revascularisation, myocardial infarction, and stroke.
resultsThe median age of the patients (n=280) was 70.7 (25th percentile-75th percentile: 62.0-78.0) years, and 24.6% were female. The Gensini score (28.5 [16.2-48.1] vs 28.0 [15.5-47.0]; p=0.78) was comparable between rPCI versus mPCI. During the PCI procedure, total contrast fluid volume did not differ, whilst longer fluoroscopy times (20.4 min [13.8-27.2] vs 14.4 min [10.4-24.3]; p=0.001) were documented in the rPCI versus mPCI cohort. After 12 months of follow-up, neither all-cause mortality (p=0.22) nor MACE (p=0.25) differed between the groups.
conclusionsrPCI was associated with longer fluoroscopy times compared with mPCI, though without increased use of contrast medium. One-year follow-up revealed no differences in all-cause mortality or MACE, supporting the safety of a robotic-assisted approach.
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.