DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.15585 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 15585: Robotic versus Manual Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Muhammed K Elfaituri, Ala Khaled, Ahmed BenGhatnsh, Ahmed Elfaituri, Hazem Abdelkarem A Faraj, Ahmed Msherghi
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Introduction: Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a recent development in managing coronary artery disease, offers potential advantages such as enhanced precision, stability, and radiation protection over traditional manual PCI. Despite these promises, a comprehensive and current comparison of safety and effectiveness between these methods remains to be established.

Hypothesis: This study aims to evaluate and compare the outcomes of robotic and manual PCI.

Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, was carried out up to May 2023, aiming to identify studies comparing robotic and manual PCI. The primary outcomes were major cardiovascular events and myocardial infarction rates, and secondary outcomes included contrast volume used (in mL), procedural time (in minutes), and fluoroscopy time (in minutes). Relative risk (RR) for categorical outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.0.3) with the metafor and meta packages.

Results: Our search strategy identified eight studies, including 2339 patients (703 in the robotic group and 1636 in the manual group). The pooled RR of major cardiovascular events was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.48-1.70, P=0.76, I2=0%), and myocardial infarction rate was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.43-1.83, P=0.73, I2=0%), indicating no significant difference between robotic and manual PCI. Notably, robotic PCI was associated with a statistically significant mean reduction in the contrast volume of -14.28 mL (95% CI: -23.65 to -4.93, P<0.01, I2=0%). However, the differences in procedural time and fluoroscopy time did not reach statistical significance, with 2.73 minutes (95% CI: -4.71 to 10.17, P=0.47, I2=62%) and -2.15 minutes (95% CI: -4.35 to 0.05, P=0.06, I2=51%) respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to its manual counterpart, this study highlights that robotic PCI significantly decreases contrast volume use while maintaining similar outcomes in other procedural parameters. This underscores robotic PCI's potential in interventional cardiology, also indicating the need for more high-quality trials for long-term outcome confirmation.

More from our Archive