ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Manual support during robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Visceral Interventions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility during early implementation of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is an efficacious and safe treatment option for coronary artery disease. However, predictors of manual support during R-PCI are unknown, which we aimed to investigate in a multi-center study.
methodsWe utilized patient-level data from R-PCIs carried out from 2020 to 2022 at four sites in Germany. Manual support was defined as the combination of partial manual assistance, where the procedure is ultimately completed using robotic techniques, and manual conversion. A two-step selection process based on akaike information criteria was used to identify the ideal multivariable model predicting manual support.
resultsIn 210 patients (median age 69.0 years; 25.7% female), a total of 231 coronary lesions were treated by R-PCI. Manual support was needed in 46 lesions (19.9%). Procedures requiring manual support were associated with significantly longer procedural times, greater total contrast fluid volumes, longer fluoroscopy times, and higher dose-area products. Amongst the predictors of manual support were lesions in the left anterior descending artery [OR: 1.09 (95%-CI: 0.99-1.20)], aorto-ostial lesions [OR: 1.35 (95%-CI: 1.11-1.64)], chronic total occlusions [OR: 1.78 (95%-CI: 1.38-2.31)], true bifurcations [OR: 1.37 (95%-CI: 1.17-1.59)], and severe calcification [OR: 1.13 (95%-CI: 1.00-1.27)].
conclusionOur findings reveal that nearly one out five of patients undergoing R-PCI required manual support, which was linked to longer procedure durations. Predictors of manual support reflected characteristics of more complex coronary lesions. These results highlight the limitations of current R-PCI platforms and underscore the need for technical advancements to address different clinical scenarios.
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.