ArticleAsiaIntervention2026
A randomised clinical trial investigating robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: the PARTY trial.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 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.
- The robotic revolution in percutaneous coronary intervention: bridging the gap to clinical reality.AsiaIntervention · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) allows precise control of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) equipment with the operator in a radiation-shielded cockpit. Aims: We aimed to address the lack of randomised studies investigating this emerging technology. Methods: In this single-centre, randomised controlled trial, patients with symptomatic coronary disease underwent either R-PCI or manual PCI (M-PCI). The primary endpoint was patient radiation exposure. Secondary outcomes included radiation exposure to the medical team, overall subjective workload, and other procedural characteristics. Results: A total of 148 patients were randomised (72 R-PCI, 76 M-PCI), with a median age of 63.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 55.5-69.5), and 82.4% were male. In the intention-to-treat analysis, R-PCI numerically reduced patient radiation exposure (230.7 microsieverts [μSv; IQR 104.0-443.7] vs 261.4 µSv [IQR 136.5-531.2]; p=0.14). This reduction became statistically significant in the as-treated analysis (218.5 µSv [IQR 100.0-375.3] vs 264.7 µSv [IQR 136.3-534.8]; p=0.03). R-PCI significantly reduced operator radiation exposure (0.1 µSv [IQR 0.1-0.3] vs 13.6 µSv [IQR 6.0-29.2]; p<0.0001) and contrast usage (75 mL [IQR 50-120] vs 100 mL [IQR 70-130]; p=0.001). R-PCI did not prolong PCI time (40 mins [IQR 25.3-58.8] vs 46 mins [IQR 31.0-55.8]; p=0.23). Seven R-PCI cases (9.7%) required manual conversion. R-PCI reduced operator workload (NASA Task Load Index 12.5 [IQR 9.4-30] vs 25 [IQR 11.3-45]; p<0.01). There were no major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. Conclusions: Patient radiation exposure was numerically reduced with R-PCI, while operator radiation exposure was significantly reduced, without prolonging PCI time. Furthermore, R-PCI reduced contrast use and was found to be less onerous for the operator. These results are encouraging; however, there are important limitations that must be addressed before wider adoption.
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.