Robotic-Enhanced PCI vs Traditional Manual Approach
Robotic-Enhanced PCI vs Traditional Manual Approach
Remote-controlled robotic-enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed to improve procedural outcomes, reduce operator radiation exposure, and improve ergonomics. Critics questioned whether protection of the operator might result in increased radiation exposure to the patient and increase contrast media use. We studied this in a single-center comparison of robotic-enhanced versus traditional PCIs. A total of 40 patients who enrolled in the PRECISE study and had PCI with the CorPath 200 robotic system (Corindus Vascular Robotics) were compared to 80 consecutive patients who underwent conventional PCI. All patients had obstructive coronary artery disease, evidence of myocardial ischemia, and clinical indications for single-vessel PCI. Baseline demographics of the 40 robotic and 80 traditional PCIs were similar. Only 2 robotic-assisted cases required conversion to manual PCI. All patients had a final residual stenosis <30%. Robotic-enhanced PCI was associated with trends toward lower duration of fluoroscopy (10.1 ± 4.7 min vs 12.3 ± 7.6 min; P=.05), radiation dose (1389 ± 599 mGy vs 1665 ± 1026 mGy; P=.07), and contrast volume (121 ± 47 mL vs 137 ± 62 mL; P=.11). In conclusion, the initial experience with robotic-enhanced PCI was not associated with increased fluoroscopy duration, radiation, or contrast media exposure to patients, and compared favorably to the traditional approach.
Remote-controlled robotic-enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed to enhance procedural standardization and precision, and to address the occupational hazards to the interventional cardiologist. Initial experience and the PRECISE multicenter study demonstrated that robotic-enhanced PCI is feasible and safe and results in decreased radiation exposure to the operator. Despite clear benefits to operators, critics suggest that protection of the interventionalist from radiation with a new system may result in prolonged fluoroscopy times and increased radiation exposure to the patient. We studied this hypothesis by comparing robotic-enhanced to traditional PCI.
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
Remote-controlled robotic-enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed to improve procedural outcomes, reduce operator radiation exposure, and improve ergonomics. Critics questioned whether protection of the operator might result in increased radiation exposure to the patient and increase contrast media use. We studied this in a single-center comparison of robotic-enhanced versus traditional PCIs. A total of 40 patients who enrolled in the PRECISE study and had PCI with the CorPath 200 robotic system (Corindus Vascular Robotics) were compared to 80 consecutive patients who underwent conventional PCI. All patients had obstructive coronary artery disease, evidence of myocardial ischemia, and clinical indications for single-vessel PCI. Baseline demographics of the 40 robotic and 80 traditional PCIs were similar. Only 2 robotic-assisted cases required conversion to manual PCI. All patients had a final residual stenosis <30%. Robotic-enhanced PCI was associated with trends toward lower duration of fluoroscopy (10.1 ± 4.7 min vs 12.3 ± 7.6 min; P=.05), radiation dose (1389 ± 599 mGy vs 1665 ± 1026 mGy; P=.07), and contrast volume (121 ± 47 mL vs 137 ± 62 mL; P=.11). In conclusion, the initial experience with robotic-enhanced PCI was not associated with increased fluoroscopy duration, radiation, or contrast media exposure to patients, and compared favorably to the traditional approach.
Introduction
Remote-controlled robotic-enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed to enhance procedural standardization and precision, and to address the occupational hazards to the interventional cardiologist. Initial experience and the PRECISE multicenter study demonstrated that robotic-enhanced PCI is feasible and safe and results in decreased radiation exposure to the operator. Despite clear benefits to operators, critics suggest that protection of the interventionalist from radiation with a new system may result in prolonged fluoroscopy times and increased radiation exposure to the patient. We studied this hypothesis by comparing robotic-enhanced to traditional PCI.
