Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention
Authors' conclusion
rPCI was associated with longer fluoroscopy times compared with mPCI, though without increased use of contrast medium. One-year follow-up revealed no differences in all-cause mortality or MACE, supporting the safety of a robotic-assisted approach.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with chronic coronary syndrome and NSTEMI ACS
- Participants
- 280 patients
- Exposure
- Robotic-assisted PCI vs manual PCI
- rPCIn = 70
- Manual PCI (mPCI)n = 210reference
- Outcome
- Co-primary: all-cause mortality and MACE (CV death, unplanned target lesion revascularisation, MI, stroke)
- Follow-up
- One year
Methodological detailssingle-centre
- Single-centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
12 months
- Neither all-cause mortality nor MACE differed between groups
- rPCI vs mPCI: P = 0.22
- rPCI vs mPCI: P = 0.25
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Fluoroscopy time · during PCI
P = 0.001
Total contrast fluid volume · during PCI
- Did not differ
Original publication
Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. Published 1 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →