SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a fundamental aspect of coronary artery disease (CAD) management. However, manual PCI (M-PCI) procedures bring potential risks such as long-term radiation exposure, operator fatigue, and injuries, posing a threat of malignancies, orthopedic problems, cataracts, and other medical complications. The recently developed robotic-assisted PCI (R-PCI) system allows PCI to be performed from a protected cockpit, reducing radiation exposure, orthopedic injuries, and contrast media usage and improving stent placement accuracy for patients.
objectivesThis review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted PCI.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across six databases including PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Scopus, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest, covering studies published from October 2023 to November 2023. The outcomes of interest included safety assessment through (I) procedure-related adverse event rate and (II) mortality rate, while efficacy was assessed through (I) procedural time, (II) fluoroscopy time, (III) contrast volume, (IV) clinical procedural success, and (V) technical success. Quality appraisal was performed using ROBINS-I, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.
resultsA search across 6 databases resulted in 15 articles for analysis. We found that R-PCI is superior to M-PCI in reducing fluoroscopy time (MD = -3.68, 95% CI = -6.25 to -1.11, p = 0.005) and contrast volume (MD = -16.79, 95% CI = -22.28 to -11.30, p < 0.00001). However, there is no significant difference in terms of procedure-related adverse events, mortality rate, procedural time, and clinical procedural, and technical success.
conclusionR-PCI offers procedural advantages, particularly in reducing fluoroscopy time and contrast use, while demonstrating comparable safety and efficacy to M-PCI. Further, high-quality trials are needed to clarify its long-term clinical impact.
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.