Safety and feasibility of robotic assisted percutaneous coronary intervention compared to standard percutaneous coronary intervention- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
patients with coronary artery disease (CAD)
robotically assisted PCI (R-PCI)
standard PCI (S-PCI)
clinical success, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast use, radiation exposure
Abstract
Robotically assisted PCI offers a great alternative to S-PCI. This has gained even more relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic era however safety of R-PCI compared to S-PCI has not been studied well. This study explores the safety and efficacy of robotically assisted PCI (R-PCI) compared to standard PCI (S-PCI) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Google scholar databases were searched for studies comparing R-PCI to S-PCI. Outcomes included clinical success, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast use and radiation exposure. Theauthors included 5 studies comprising 1555 patients in this meta-analysis. Clinical success was comparable in both arms (p = 0.91). Procedure time was significantly longer in R-PCI group (risk ratio: 5.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.85 to 9.91, p = 0.003). Compared to S-PCI, patients in R-PCI group had lower contrast use (meandifference: -19.88, 95% confidence interval: -21.43 to -18.33, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (mean difference:-1.82, 95% confidence interval: -3.64 to -0.00, p = 0.05) and radiation exposure (mean difference:-457.8, 95% confidence interval: -707.14 to -208.14, p < 0.001). R-PCI can achieve similar success as S-PCI at the expense of longer procedural times. However, radiation exposure and contrast exposure were lower in the R-PCI arm.