Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis
Łajczak P, Ayesha A, Sahin OK, Freeman PI, Majeed MW, Righetto BB, Obi O, Moreno GJ, Krishna MM, Mulenga KF, Finnegan EA, Joseph M, Łajczak A, Schincariol M (2025)
Publication Type: Journal article, Review article
Publication year: 2025
Journal
Article Number: 100508
DOI: 10.1007/s12928-025-01131-8
Abstract
Robotic-assistance in the percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (R-PCI) has emerged as a novel alternative to manual PCI (M-PCI). However, previous reviews have not incorporated advancements in new devices. Therefore, we aim to present updated results for a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing these two modalities.We systematically searched five databases. Clinical studies comparing R-PCI to M-PCI were included. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using a mean difference (MD), while binary outcomes were assessed with odds ratios (ORs) using random-effect models due to anticipated heterogeneity. A total of 10 papers were included. Clinical success for < 20% residual stenosis was higher (OR 7.93 (95% CI 1.02 to 61.68)), while air kerma was lower (MD − 468.61 (95% CI − 718.32 to − 218.90)) in R-PCI procedures. However, procedural time (MD 5.57 (95% CI − 5.69 to 16.84)), fluoroscopy time (MD − 0.30 (95% CI − 2.26 to 1.66)), contrast dose (MD − 6.29 (95% CI − 25.23 to 12.65)), dose area product (MD − 642.57 (95% CI − 2434.20 to 1149.07)), MACE events (OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.96)), and mortality (OR 1.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.22)) showed no significant difference between interventions. TSA showed true positive result. Our meta-analysis reveals decreased air kerma in robotic versus manual PCI but fewer statistically significant outcomes overall. Results from this study offer a more comprehensive view of existing evidence compared to previous analyses.
Involved external institutions
Medical University of Silesia in Katowice / Śląski Uniwersytet Medyczny w Katowicach (SUM)
Poland (PL)
Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
Pakistan (PK)
Edremit State Hospital / Edremit Devlet Hastanesi
Turkey (TR)
Universidad del Tolima
Colombia (CO)
Government Medical College (GMC)
India (IN)
Universidade Positivo (UP)
Brazil (BR)
Government Medical College / ഗവൺമെന്റ് മെഡിക്കൽ കോളേജ്, തിരുവനന്തപുരം
India (IN)
Azerbaijan Medical University / Azərbaycan Tibb Universiteti / Азербайджанский медицинский университет
Azerbaijan (AZ)
Trinity College Dublin
Ireland (IE)
Klinikum Fürth
Germany (DE)
New York Institute of Technology
United States (USA) (US)
Poland (PL)
Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
Pakistan (PK)
Edremit State Hospital / Edremit Devlet Hastanesi
Turkey (TR)
Universidad del Tolima
Colombia (CO)
Government Medical College (GMC)
India (IN)
Universidade Positivo (UP)
Brazil (BR)
Government Medical College / ഗവൺമെന്റ് മെഡിക്കൽ കോളേജ്, തിരുവനന്തപുരം
India (IN)
Azerbaijan Medical University / Azərbaycan Tibb Universiteti / Азербайджанский медицинский университет
Azerbaijan (AZ)
Trinity College Dublin
Ireland (IE)
Klinikum Fürth
Germany (DE)
New York Institute of Technology
United States (USA) (US)
How to cite
APA:
Łajczak, P., Ayesha, A., Sahin, O.K., Freeman, P.I., Majeed, M.W., Righetto, B.B.,... Schincariol, M. (2025). Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-025-01131-8
MLA:
Łajczak, Paweł, et al. "Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis." Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (2025).
BibTeX: Download