Robot-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: As alternatives to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), robot-assisted CABG (R-CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offer less invasive treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, data comparing outcomes of R-CABG versus PCI are limited. Methods: Databases were systematically searched for studies comparing R-CABG versus PCI. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), both overall and stratified by left main or multivessel (LM+MV) or isolated left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease. Kaplan–Meier curves were digitally extracted to reconstruct individual participant data (IPD), from which hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for survival analyses. Results: Six retrospective studies, including 1,896 patients (R-CABG: 894, 47.1%), were analyzed. The mean age was 63.8 ± 11.3 years, and 78.7% were male patients. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 8 years. Overall, R-CABG was associated with a lower odds of target vessel revascularization (TVR; OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.93, P = 0.03) and myocardial infarction (MI; OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76, P < 0.01), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Among patients with LM+MV disease, R-CABG reduced TVR and MI. In LAD lesions, R-CABG significantly lowered the likelihood of MI (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.71) as well as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.93). Time-to-event analysis from reconstructed IPD demonstrated significantly improved freedom from reintervention (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.60) and MACE (HR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.60) with R-CABG, whereas no significant difference was found for all-cause mortality. Conclusions: R-CABG was associated with less TVR and MI compared with PCI in CAD patients, with no difference in all-cause mortality.