ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2025
One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 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
- 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
- Evaluating Patients' Profiles and Procedural Outcomes of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Single Centre Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 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 Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Visceral Interventions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Randomized trial of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: feasibility achieved, but questions remain on generalizability and training.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Manual support during robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising technology for optimizing the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. For a better understanding of the potential of R-PCI in clinical routine compared to conventional manual PCI (M-PCI) both initial treatment success of the index procedure and long-term outcome have to be analysed.
methodsProspective evaluation from the FRiK (DRKS00023868) registry of all R-PCI cases with the CorPath GRX Cardiology by Siemens Healthineers and Corindus in the Freiburg University Heart Center between 04/2022 and 03/2023. Index procedure success and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, and 1-year outcome will be reported. Findings will be compared to a prospective control group of M-PCI patients treated by the same team of interventionalists during the same observation period.
resultsSeventy patients received R-PCI and were included in the registry. PCI success rate was 100%, with 19% requiring manual assistance. No complications (MACE-major adverse cardiovascular events) occurred. Compared with 70 matched-pair M-PCI patients, there was a higher median procedural time (103 min vs. 67 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (18 min vs. 15 min, p = 0.002), and more contrast volume was used (180 ml vs. 160 ml, p = 0.041) in R-PCI vs. M-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference of the dose-area product (4062 vs. 3242 cGycm
conclusionR-PCI is feasible and safe. Compared to M-PCI, index procedure success rate is high, safety profile is favourable, and manual assistance was required in only few cases. At 1-year follow-up results for R-PCI vs. M-PCI considering mortality, rehospitalisation, morbidity and target vessel failure were equal.
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.