Abstract
Purpose of review
Robotics has been used in multiple areas of procedural medical intervention. Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been available since 2004. Its adoption has been slow with initial application in simple cases.
Recent findings
With increasing adoption, robotic PCI has been applied to a broader variety of coronary substrates with demonstration of safety and efficacy. Improvements in the robotic console with future generation devices should add to the utility of this platform.
Summary
Robotic PCI advances the innovations in endovascular space into a different dimension, removing the dependence of the procedure on patient-operator ergonomics and likely operator skill.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Klein LW, Goldstein JA, Haines D, Chambers C, Mehran R, Kort S, et al. SCAI multi-society position statement on occupational health hazards of the catheterization laboratory: shifting the paradigm for healthcare workers’ protection. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95(7):1327–33.
Sepehripour AH, Garas G, Athanasiou T, Casula R. Robotics in cardiac surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(Suppl 7):22–33.
•• Beyar R, Wenderow T, Lindner D, Kumar G, Shofti R. Concept, design and pre-clinical studies for remote control percutaneous coronary interventions. EuroIntervention. 2005;1(3):340–345.
•• Granada JF, Delgado JA, Uribe MP, Fernandez A, Blanco G, Leon MB, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel robotic-assisted coronary angioplasty system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(4):460–465.
Maor E, Eleid MF, Gulati R, Lerman A, Sandhu GA. Current and future use of robotic devices to perform percutaneous coronary interventions: a review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(7): e006239.
Mangels DR, Giri J, Hirshfeld J, Wilensky RL. Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90(6):948–55.
Al Nooryani A, Aboushokka W. Rotate-on-retract procedural automation for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: first clinical experience. Case Rep Cardiol. 2018;2018:6086034.
• Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Delgado JA, Marshall JJ, Vetrovec GW, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1596–600. First large study demonstrating safety and efficacy of robotic PCI.
Kagiyama K, Mitsutake Y, Ueno T, Sakai S, Nakamura T, Yamaji K, et al. Successful introduction of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention system into Japanese clinical practice: a first-year survey at single center. Heart Vessels. 2021;36(7):955–64.
• Mahmud E, Naghi J, Ang L, Harrison J, Behnamfar O, Pourdjabbar A, et al. Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions: results of the CORA-PCI Study (Complex Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(13):1320–1327.
• Walters D, Reeves RR, Patel M, Naghi J, Ang L, Mahmud E. Complex robotic compared to manual coronary interventions: 6- and 12-month outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(4):613–617.
Hirai T, Kearney K, Kataruka A, Gosch KL, Brandt H, Nicholson WJ, et al. Initial report of safety and procedure duration of robotic-assisted chronic total occlusion coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95(1):165–9.
•• Patel TM, Shah SC, Soni YY, Radadiya R, Patel GA, Tiwari PO, et al. Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score-matched analysis of a large cohort. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(5): e008888. This was the first large dataset that showed a significant reduction in radiation exposure to the patient with robotic PCI compared to traditional PCI.
• Madder RD, VanOosterhout SM, Jacoby ME, Collins JS, Borgman AS, Mulder AN, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study). EuroIntervention. 2017;12(1):1569–1576.
• Patel TM, Shah SC, Pancholy SB. Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;14:53–58.
Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, Bush J, Martin S, Rash A, et al. Network latency and long-distance robotic telestenting: exploring the potential impact of network delays on telestenting performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95(5):914–9.
Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, Bush J, Martin S, Rash A. Feasibility of robotic telestenting over long geographic distances: a pre-clinical ex vivo and in vivo study. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(6):e510–2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of Topical Collection on Interventional Cardiology
