SynthesisCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis of research on robot-assisted vascular interventional surgery (2015-2025).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiology in the current era: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Advancements and challenges in autonomous endovascular interventional robotics: A comprehensive review.iScience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assistance in the percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (R-PCI) has emerged as a novel alternative to manual PCI (M-PCI). However, previous reviews have not incorporated advancements in new devices. Therefore, we aim to present updated results for a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing these two modalities.We systematically searched five databases. Clinical studies comparing R-PCI to M-PCI were included. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using a mean difference (MD), while binary outcomes were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) using random-effect models due to anticipated heterogeneity. A total of 10 papers were included. Clinical success for < 20% residual stenosis was higher (OR 7.93 (95% CI 1.02 to 61.68)), while air kerma was lower (MD - 468.61 (95% CI - 718.32 to - 218.90)) in R-PCI procedures. However, procedural time (MD 5.57 (95% CI - 5.69 to 16.84)), fluoroscopy time (MD - 0.30 (95% CI - 2.26 to 1.66)), contrast dose (MD - 6.29 (95% CI - 25.23 to 12.65)), dose area product (MD - 642.57 (95% CI - 2434.20 to 1149.07)), MACE events (OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.96)), and mortality (OR 1.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.22)) showed no significant difference between interventions. TSA showed true positive result. Our meta-analysis reveals decreased air kerma in robotic versus manual PCI but fewer statistically significant outcomes overall. Results from this study offer a more comprehensive view of existing evidence compared to previous analyses.
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.