New technology or tradition? A Bayesian meta-analysis of robotic vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention
Łajczak P, Ayesha A, Obi O, Consoli LN, Sahin OK, Eltawansy S, Ahmed F, Koziakas IG, Puglla-Sanchez LR, Łajczak A, Buczkowski S, Jóźwik K, Nowakowski P, Schincariol M (2026)
Publication Type: Journal article, Review article
Publication year: 2026
Journal
Book Volume: 76
Pages Range: 91-97
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2025.11.017
Abstract
Background: Conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) remains a standard treatment approach for coronary artery disease (CAD); however, robotic PCI (RB-PCI) is gaining attention due to possible radiation reduction. Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to compare periprocedural outcomes of RB-PCI with those of CV-PCI using a Bayesian framework. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, to identify studies comparing RB-PCI and CV-PCI. A Bayesian non-informative random-effects model was applied to synthesize the data, providing posterior estimates with credible intervals (Crl). Results: A total of ten studies and one report encompassing 3587 cases (RB-PCI and CV-PCI) were included. No significant differences were observed between RB-PCI and CV-PCI in terms of procedure time (MD 5.99; 95 % Crl -3.44 to 15.40), fluoroscopy time (MD -0.03; 95 % Crl -2.22 to 2.05), contrast volume (MD -5.87; 95 % CrI -17.85 to 6.55), or dose area product (MD -786.96; 95 % Crl -2374.70 to 773.10). Additionally, there was no significant difference in complications. Conclusion: This Bayesian meta-analysis indicates that RB-PCI offers procedural efficiency and clinical outcomes comparable to those of CV-PCI, with no significant differences in key procedural parameters. The outcomes of this synthesis may question the cost-effectiveness of this technology in the management of CAD, as the benefits of RB-PCI are limited to radiation reduction. Lack of high-quality randomized trials leads to lower certainty of current evidence.
Authors with CRIS profile
Involved external institutions
Medical University of Silesia in Katowice / Śląski Uniwersytet Medyczny w Katowicach (SUM)
Poland (PL)
Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
Pakistan (PK)
New York Institute of Technology
United States (USA) (US)
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Brazil (BR)
Edremit State Hospital / Edremit Devlet Hastanesi
Turkey (TR)
Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC)
United States (USA) (US)
Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center / Ωνάσειο Νοσοκομείο
Greece (GR)
Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa
Spain (ES)
Poland (PL)
Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University
Pakistan (PK)
New York Institute of Technology
United States (USA) (US)
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Brazil (BR)
Edremit State Hospital / Edremit Devlet Hastanesi
Turkey (TR)
Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC)
United States (USA) (US)
Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center / Ωνάσειο Νοσοκομείο
Greece (GR)
Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa
Spain (ES)
How to cite
APA:
Łajczak, P., Ayesha, A., Obi, O., Consoli, L.N., Sahin, O.K., Eltawansy, S.,... Schincariol, M. (2026). New technology or tradition? A Bayesian meta-analysis of robotic vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart & Lung, 76, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2025.11.017
MLA:
Łajczak, Paweł, et al. "New technology or tradition? A Bayesian meta-analysis of robotic vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention." Heart & Lung 76 (2026): 91-97.
BibTeX: Download