Does robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) provide efficacy and safety in patients with stenotic coronary artery disease?
R-PCI is a safe and effective alternative to manual PCI that reduces operator radiation exposure, though its use in complex lesions remains limited by device incompatibility.
Background: Ischaemic heart disease is one of the major drivers of cardiovascular death in Europe. Since the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 1977, developments and innovations in cardiology have made PCI the treatment of choice for stenotic coronary artery disease. To address the occupational hazards related to chronic exposure to radiation and wear and tear from heavy lead-based radioprotective aprons, the concept of robotically assisted PCI (R-PCI) was introduced in 2005. Aim: To explore the features and limitations of R-PCI, we first discuss the concept and evolution of R-PCI platforms and then systematically review the available clinical data. Methods: A systematic review has been performed across the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases in order to assess the efficacy and safety of R-PCI. Secondary endpoints, such as operator and patient exposure to radiation, contrast volume used and procedural time, were assessed when available. Results: In selected patients, R-PCI provides high technical and clinical success rates, ranging from 81 to 98.8% and from 93.3 to 100%, respectively. In-hospital and 1-year MACE rates ranged from 0 to 10.4% and 4.8 to 10.5%, respectively. R-PCI is able to significantly reduce the operator’s exposure to radiation. Further research analysing the patient’s and cath lab staff’s exposure to radiation is needed. Therapy escalation with R-PCI seems to be limited to complex lesions. R-PCI procedures add approximately 10 min to the procedural time. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of R-PCI have been proven, and R-PCI is able to significantly reduce occupational hazards for the first operator. The lack of adoption in the community of interventional cardiologists may be explained by the fact that current generations of R-PCI platforms are limited by their incompatibility with advanced interventional devices and techniques needed for escalation in complex interventions.
Wagener et al. (Thu,) studied this question.