Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40919347›Full record

ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2025

Robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.

Yi Yu, Zheng Chen, Zhi-Jian Wang, Yue-Ping Li, Li-Xia Yang, Jing Qi, Jing Xie, Tao Huang, Dong-Mei Shi, Yu-Jie Zhou

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yi Yu *Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zheng Chen *Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhi-Jian WangDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yue-Ping LiDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Li-Xia YangDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing QiDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing XieBeijing WeMed Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Tao HuangBeijing WeMed Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Dong-Mei ShiDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yu-Jie ZhouDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine of Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease, Clinical Center for Coronary Heart Disease, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) compared to traditional manual percutaneous coronary intervention (M-PCI).

methodsThis prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial enrolled patients with coronary heart disease who met the inclusion criteria and had indications for elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to either the R-PCI group or the M-PCI group. Primary endpoints were clinical and technical success rates. Clinical success was defined as visually estimated residual post-percutaneous coronary intervention stenosis < 30% with no 30-day major adverse cardiac events. Technical success in the R-PCI group was defined as successful completion of percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system, without conversion to M-PCI in the event of a guidewire or balloon/stent catheter that was unable to cross the vessel or was poorly supported by the catheter. Secondary endpoints included total procedure time, percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, operator radiation exposure, air kerma, and dose-area product.

resultsThe trial enrolled 152 patients (R-PCI: 73 patients, M-PCI: 79 patients). Lesions were predominantly B2/C type (73.6%). Both groups achieved 100% clinical success rate. No major adverse cardiac events occurred during the 30-day follow-up. The R-PCI group had a technical success rate of 100%. The R-PCI group had longer total procedure and fluoroscopy times, but lower operator radiation exposure. The percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, contrast volume, air kerma, and dose-area product were similar between the two groups.

conclusionsFor certain complex lesions, performing percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system is safe and effective and does not result in conversion to M-PCI.

Identifiers

PMID40919347
PMCPMC12411764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.