Periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention used in the intravascular imaging guidance
- PMID: 35511339
- PMCID: PMC9810557
- DOI: 10.1007/s12928-022-00864-0
Periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention used in the intravascular imaging guidance
Abstract
In recent years, there have been several reports on robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI), but few studies have been conducted on R-PCI performed under intravascular imaging guidance. To elucidate the periprocedural and postoperative 30-day outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided R-PCI, we performed a retrospective observational study on all patients in 102 consecutive cases who underwent R-PCI under intravascular imaging guidance at a single center in Japan from June 12, 2019 to February 18, 2021. The primary end point was 30-day survival, and the secondary end point was the incidence of complications. Intravascular imaging-guided R-PCI was performed 110 times in total on 125 lesions. The medians of procedural time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, patient entrance skin dose, and radiation exposure to the main operator were 49 min, 16 min, 67 mL, 0.62 Gy, and 0 μSv, respectively. Furthermore, 60.0% of target lesion branches were American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association classification type B2 or type C. However, in all cases, lesion dilatation was successful, and the final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade was 3. The combination of manual operation was required in 12.7% of all cases, but 30-day survival was confirmed in all cases. There were two problems at the puncture site. One small distal branch artery dissection occurred due to manual operation, but no cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) occurred and no target lesion restenosis was observed within 30 days of R-PCI. Hence, R-PCI using intravascular imaging demonstrated highly satisfactory treatment outcomes, and no complication caused by robotic operation was observed.
Keywords: Intravascular ultrasound; Optical coherence tomography; Optimal stenting.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Figures



Similar articles
-
Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388(10060):2618-2628. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31922-5. Epub 2016 Oct 30. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 27806900 Clinical Trial.
-
The Role of Vascular Imaging in Guiding Routine Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Bare Metal Stent and Drug-Eluting Stent Trials.Cardiovasc Ther. 2015 Dec;33(6):360-6. doi: 10.1111/1755-5922.12160. Cardiovasc Ther. 2015. PMID: 26363283 Review.
-
Comparison Between Optical Frequency Domain Imaging and Intravascular Ultrasound for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance in Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized MISTIC-1 Non-Inferiority Trial.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Nov;13(11):e009314. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009314. Epub 2020 Oct 27. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020. PMID: 33106049 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Role of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Optimizing Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction.J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Mar;11(5):e023481. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023481. Epub 2022 Feb 18. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022. PMID: 35179041 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography and Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Trends and Outcomes 2010-2019.Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022 Sep;47(9):101270. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101270. Epub 2022 May 28. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2022. PMID: 35640848 Review.
Cited by
-
Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI): Time to focus on the pros and cons.Indian Heart J. 2023 May-Jun;75(3):161-168. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2023.04.002. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Indian Heart J. 2023. PMID: 37080484 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Antithrombotic management in atrial fibrillation patients following percutaneous coronary intervention: A clinical review.J Arrhythm. 2024 Aug 8;40(5):1108-1114. doi: 10.1002/joa3.13128. eCollection 2024 Oct. J Arrhythm. 2024. PMID: 39416245 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prognostic Factors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Life (Basel). 2022 Oct 21;12(10):1672. doi: 10.3390/life12101672. Life (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36295106 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: experience in Switzerland.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Dec 4;10:1294930. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1294930. eCollection 2023. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023. PMID: 38116535 Free PMC article.
-
Features and Limitations of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (R-PCI): A Systematic Review of R-PCI.J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 19;13(18):5537. doi: 10.3390/jcm13185537. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39337024 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Ahmad M, Mehta P, Reddivari AKR, Mungee S. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Statpearls 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556123/. Accessed 15 Nov 2021. - PubMed
-
- Smitson CC, Ang L, Pourdjabbar A, Reeves R, Patel M, Mahmud E. Safety and feasibility of a novel, second-generation robotic-assisted system for percutaneous coronary intervention: first-in-human report. J Invasive Cardiol. 2018;30:152–156. - PubMed
-
- Patel TM, Shah SC, Soni YY, Radadiya RC, Patel GA, Tiwari PO, et al. Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score-matched analysis of a large cohort. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008888. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008888. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous