1. Safety and feasibility of robotic assisted percutaneous coronary intervention compared to standard percutaneous coronary intervention- a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author
-
Byomesh Tripathi, Purnima Sharma, Shilpkumar Arora, Malik Murtaza, Aanandita Singh, Dhanshree Solanki, Saurabh Kapadia, Akshat Sharma, and Ashish Pershad
- Subjects
Robotic PCI ,Robotic assisted PCI ,CorePath ,Coronary artery disease ,Coronary angiography ,Radiation exposure ,Surgery ,RD1-811 ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
Objective: Robotically assisted PCI offers a great alternative to S–PCI. This has gained even more relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic era however safety of R–PCI compared to S–PCI has not been studied well. This study explores the safety and efficacy of robotically assisted PCI (R–PCI) compared to standard PCI (S–PCI) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Google scholar databases were searched for studies comparing R–PCI to S–PCI. Outcomes included clinical success, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast use and radiation exposure. Results: Theauthors included 5 studies comprising 1555 patients in this meta-analysis. Clinical success was comparable in both arms (p = 0.91). Procedure time was significantly longer in R–PCI group (risk ratio: 5.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.85 to 9.91, p = 0.003). Compared to S–PCI, patients in R–PCI group had lower contrast use (meandifference: −19.88, 95% confidence interval: −21.43 to −18.33, p
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF