Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Aug;114(8):1000-1007.
doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02524-0. Epub 2024 Aug 21.

One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention

Constantin von Zur Mühlen  1 , Marvin Jeuck  1 , Timo Heidt  1   2 , Thomas Maulhardt  1 , Tau Hartikainen  1 , Alexander Supady  3   4 , Ingo Hilgendorf  1 , Dennis Wolf  1 , Klaus Kaier  5 , Dirk Westermann  1 , Jonathan Rilinger  6
Affiliations
Comparative Study

One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention

Constantin von Zur Mühlen et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2025 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising technology for optimizing the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. For a better understanding of the potential of R-PCI in clinical routine compared to conventional manual PCI (M-PCI) both initial treatment success of the index procedure and long-term outcome have to be analysed.

Methods: Prospective evaluation from the FRiK (DRKS00023868) registry of all R-PCI cases with the CorPath GRX Cardiology by Siemens Healthineers and Corindus in the Freiburg University Heart Center between 04/2022 and 03/2023. Index procedure success and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, and 1-year outcome will be reported. Findings will be compared to a prospective control group of M-PCI patients treated by the same team of interventionalists during the same observation period.

Results: Seventy patients received R-PCI and were included in the registry. PCI success rate was 100%, with 19% requiring manual assistance. No complications (MACE-major adverse cardiovascular events) occurred. Compared with 70 matched-pair M-PCI patients, there was a higher median procedural time (103 min vs. 67 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (18 min vs. 15 min, p = 0.002), and more contrast volume was used (180 ml vs. 160 ml, p = 0.041) in R-PCI vs. M-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference of the dose-area product (4062 vs. 3242 cGycm2, p = 0.361). One year after the intervention, there was no difference in mortality, rehospitalisation, unscheduled PCI or target vessel failure. Health-related quality of life evaluation 6 and 12 months after the index procedure (NYHA, CCS, SAQ7 and EQ-5D-5L) was similar in both groups.

Conclusion: R-PCI is feasible and safe. Compared to M-PCI, index procedure success rate is high, safety profile is favourable, and manual assistance was required in only few cases. At 1-year follow-up results for R-PCI vs. M-PCI considering mortality, rehospitalisation, morbidity and target vessel failure were equal.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Outcome; Percutaneous coronary intervention; R-PCI; Robotic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interests: JR received speaker’s honoraria from Astrazeneca and research grants from Abbott and Philips, independent from this work. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The protocol was approved by our institution’s ethical committee (EK-Freiburg 20-1344). Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of procedural characteristics of Robotic assisted PCI (R-PCI, n = 70) with matched manual PCI cohort (M-PCI, n = 70). ns = p ≥ 0.05; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of one-year outcome of Robotic assisted PCI (R-PCI, n = 70) with matched manual PCI cohort (M-PCI, n = 70). ns = p ≥ 0.05; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Beyar R, Gruberg L, Deleanu D et al (2006) Remote-control percutaneous coronary interventions: concept, validation, and first-in-humans pilot clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:296–300 - PubMed
    1. Granada JF, Delgado JA, Uribe MP et al (2011) First-in-human evaluation of a novel robotic-assisted coronary angioplasty system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4:460–465 - PubMed
    1. Madder RD, VanOosterhout SM, Jacoby ME et al (2017) Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study). EuroIntervention 12:1569–1576 - PubMed
    1. Mahmud E, Naghi J, Ang L et al (2017) Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: results of the CORA-PCI study (complex robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:1320–1327 - PubMed
    1. Walters D, Reeves RR, Patel M, Naghi J, Ang L, Mahmud E (2019) Complex robotic compared to manual coronary interventions: 6- and 12-month outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 93:613–617 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources