ArticleInterventional cardiology (London, England)2026
Procedural and Clinical Outcomes of Second-generation Robotic-assisted versus Manual Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A 1-year Follow-up Study.
Article in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) offers potential benefits, including improved lesion assessment, optimised stent deployment and reduced radiation exposure. However, comparative data, particularly in Japanese populations, remain limited. Aim: To compare procedural and clinical outcomes between second-generation rPCI and manual percutaneous coronary intervention (mPCI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome over a 1-year follow-up period. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 176 patients who underwent rPCI using the second-generation CorPath GRX Vascular Robotic System. Following 1:1 propensity score matching at the lesion level, 176 patients were identified in the mPCI group. The co-primary endpoints were 1-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, target lesion revascularisation, stent thrombosis and stroke. Results: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Compared with mPCI, rPCI was associated with shorter total procedural time (26 minutes [19-37] versus 71 minutes [52-90]; p<0.01), fluoroscopy time (14 minutes [10-18] versus 16 minutes [10-26]; p=0.04), lower contrast volume (99 [82.8-129.0] versus 141 ml [116-172]; p<0.01) and lower dose area product (3,628.3 [2,552.1-5,352.3] versus 6,349.1 [4,080.0-8,382.3]; p<0.01). At 1 year, the co-primary endpoints of all-cause mortality (p=0.33) and major adverse cardiovascular events (p=0.79) were comparable between groups. Conclusion: Compared with mPCI, rPCI was associated with shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times, lower contrast volume and lower dose area product, while demonstrating similar clinical outcomes at 1 year.
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.