Safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention program in a tertiary center: a prospective study.
Coronary
angioplasty
noninferiority
robotics
stent
Journal
Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy
ISSN: 2223-3652
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101601613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
17
07
2021
accepted:
29
09
2021
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a novel technology that permits remote operation of interventional devices. However, little is known about the safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic PCI program in a hospital already experienced in traditional coronary angioplasty. Prospective single-arm survey to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted PCI in comparison to pre-defined performance goals. The study cohort comprised all consecutive cases treated with robotic PCI since its introduction. The safety primary endpoint was a composite of (I) overall death or (II) non-fatal adverse events related to target vessel complications (stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, vessel perforation or cardiac tamponade, or repeat invasive treatment) during the index hospitalization. The efficacy primary endpoint was robotic-assisted procedural success, a composite of (I) successful dilatation of the target lesion and (II) successful robotic assistance, defined as absent non-planned manual conversion. A total of 83 patients and 112 lesions were prospectively enrolled. The rate of angiographic success was 99.1%. From these, 97 lesions (86.6%) were treated with only robotic PCI or with hybrid according to the pre-interventional plan. The rates of efficacy and safety primary endpoints were 85.7% and 2.4% respectively (P<0.01 for non-inferior to the pre-defined performance threshold). Introduction of robotic-assisted PCI in a tertiary center was associated with safe and effective results, comparable to pre-defined goals of optimal performance.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a novel technology that permits remote operation of interventional devices. However, little is known about the safety and effectiveness of introducing a robotic PCI program in a hospital already experienced in traditional coronary angioplasty.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Prospective single-arm survey to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted PCI in comparison to pre-defined performance goals. The study cohort comprised all consecutive cases treated with robotic PCI since its introduction. The safety primary endpoint was a composite of (I) overall death or (II) non-fatal adverse events related to target vessel complications (stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, vessel perforation or cardiac tamponade, or repeat invasive treatment) during the index hospitalization. The efficacy primary endpoint was robotic-assisted procedural success, a composite of (I) successful dilatation of the target lesion and (II) successful robotic assistance, defined as absent non-planned manual conversion.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 83 patients and 112 lesions were prospectively enrolled. The rate of angiographic success was 99.1%. From these, 97 lesions (86.6%) were treated with only robotic PCI or with hybrid according to the pre-interventional plan. The rates of efficacy and safety primary endpoints were 85.7% and 2.4% respectively (P<0.01 for non-inferior to the pre-defined performance threshold).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Introduction of robotic-assisted PCI in a tertiary center was associated with safe and effective results, comparable to pre-defined goals of optimal performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35282671
doi: 10.21037/cdt-21-442
pii: cdt-12-01-67
pmc: PMC8898692
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
67-76Informations de copyright
2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://cdt.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/cdt-21-442/coif). PAL is supported in part by a grant from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)—Brazil (grant number 306677/2019-9). He serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy from September 2021 to September 2022. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct 10;9(19):2058-2064
pubmed: 27639904
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jul 10;10(13):1320-1327
pubmed: 28683937
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;130:37-45
pubmed: 32665131
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2015 Dec;5(6):414-9
pubmed: 26675281
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 15;90(6):881-887
pubmed: 28544146
Br J Radiol. 1985 May;58(689):419-28
pubmed: 2933118
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2020 Oct;10(5):1345-1351
pubmed: 33224759
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jul 1;82(1):29-42
pubmed: 23475846
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2019 Oct;9(5):462-471
pubmed: 31737517
Acute Card Care. 2014 Jun;16(2):37-40
pubmed: 24654789
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Jul 24;6(7):
pubmed: 28739860
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Sep 03;14:53-58
pubmed: 31709402
Circulation. 1994 Dec;90(6):2725-30
pubmed: 7994814
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Apr 16;61(15):1596-600
pubmed: 23500318
Circulation. 2018 Jun 12;137(24):2635-2650
pubmed: 29891620
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Aug 4;9(15):e016575
pubmed: 32750302
Circ J. 2014;78(5):1097-103
pubmed: 24662401
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 15;90(6):948-955
pubmed: 28722293
Future Cardiol. 2021 Aug;17(5):865-873
pubmed: 33834847
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Oct 6;76(14):1622-1639
pubmed: 33004127
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 1;118(7):950-8
pubmed: 27522303
J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 Jul;26(7):318-21
pubmed: 24993988
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75(18):2372-2375
pubmed: 32199938
Glob Heart. 2018 Dec;13(4):305-338
pubmed: 30154043
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jul;90(1):1-9
pubmed: 28500744
J Invasive Cardiol. 2018 Apr;30(4):152-156
pubmed: 29335386
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Sep 22;6(9):
pubmed: 28939719
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2013 Jul-Aug;14(4):223-8
pubmed: 23759715
Heart Views. 2014 Oct-Dec;15(4):133-4
pubmed: 25774258
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Mar 20;6(3):
pubmed: 28320749
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Apr 1;91(5):842-848
pubmed: 28733995