ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Feasibility and Safety of the ETcath200 Robotic PCI System for Complex Coronary Lesions: A Prospective Single-Center Study.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternational robotic-assisted PCI platforms such as CorPath 200 and CorPath GRX have demonstrated procedural safety and efficacy but are limited by the absence of real-time tactile feedback and cumbersome device exchange. The ETcath200, the first domestically developed robotic PCI system in China, introduces guidewire force-sensing to provide real-time visual resistance feedback that partially compensates for the lack of direct tactile sensation, along with streamlined device exchange and an intuitive joystick-roller interface.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and procedural performance of the ETcath200 system in patients with complex coronary lesions.
methodsIn this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial, 20 patients with AHA/ACC type B2 or C complex coronary lesions underwent PCI using the ETcath200 system. Technical success was defined as full robotic completion without any unplanned manual input (including partial manual assistance or manual conversion); clinical success as residual stenosis < 30% with TIMI 3 flow and no in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Patients were followed for 30 days.
resultsAll 20 patients (mean age 63.2 ± 12.0 years; 80% male) had unstable angina and complex coronary anatomy (79.2% type C lesions; 50% bifurcation, 65% diffuse). Most procedures were performed via radial access (80%), and the majority utilized drug-eluting stents (65%). Technical success was achieved in 16 cases (80%), while four cases (20%) required manual conversion due to severe tortuosity or calcification (n = 3) or guidewire-induced dissection (n = 1; managed successfully). All patients achieved clinical success; no device failures, MACE, or serious adverse events occurred at 30 days. Mean procedure duration was 61.0 ± 23.3 min; radiation dose was 0.07 ± 0.04 mSv.
conclusionsThe ETcath200 robotic PCI system demonstrated feasibility, safety, and reliable performance in complex coronary lesions, achieving high clinical success and excellent short-term outcomes. Manual conversion was required only in anatomically challenging cases. These data support further multicenter evaluation of ETcath200 in complex coronary interventions.
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.