Original Research

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00375

Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention

Benjamin Bay1,2,3, MD; Luisa M. Kiwus1; Alina Goßling1,3, MSc; Lukas Koester1, MD; Christopher Blaum1, MD; Benedikt Schrage1,2,3, MD, PhD; Peter Clemmensen1,2,3, MD, DMSc; Stefan Blankenberg1,2,3, MD; Christoph Waldeyer1,2, MD; Moritz Seiffert1,2,3, MD; Fabian J. Brunner1,2,3, MD


BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) has proven to be feasible and safe. Comparative analyses of rPCI versus manual PCI (mPCI) are scarce.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate procedural aspects and outcomes of rPCI using the second-generation CorPath GRX Vascular Robotic System compared with mPCI in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS: From January to April 2021, 70 patients underwent rPCI at the University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and were recruited into the INTERCATH study. By propensity score matching, a control cohort of 210 patients who underwent mPCI from 2015-2021 was identified. Co-primary endpoints were one-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a composite of cardiovascular death, unplanned target lesion revascularisation, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS: The median age of the patients (n=280) was 70.7 (25th percentile-75th percentile: 62.0-78.0) years, and 24.6% were female. The Gensini score (28.5 [16.2-48.1] vs 28.0 [15.5-47.0]; p=0.78) was comparable between rPCI versus mPCI. During the PCI procedure, total contrast fluid volume did not differ, whilst longer fluoroscopy times (20.4 min...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 20 Number 1
Jan 1, 2024
Volume 20 Number 1
View full issue

Key metrics

On the same subject


10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00064 Jan 1, 2024
Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: the future or the past?
Durand E and Eltchaninoff H

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00642 Apr 3, 2023
Evaluation of the R-One robotic system for percutaneous coronary intervention: the R-EVOLUTION study
Durand E et al

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00373 Jan 1, 2024
Long-term clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical coronary artery revascularisation
Dokollari A et al


10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00062 Jan 1, 2024
Hybrid coronary revascularisation: the best or the worst of both worlds?
Gaudino M and Sandner S

10.4244/EIJV12I13A256 Jan 20, 2017
Robot-assisted telestenting: brightening the light of science
Cummins P and Bruining N

10.4244/EIJV13IZA2 May 15, 2017
Current trends in coronary interventions: an overview from the EAPCI registries
Barbato E et al


10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00011 Apr 3, 2023
Robotics in interventional cardiology: a new era of safe and efficient procedures
Bruining N
Trending articles

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00824 May 15, 2022
Bench test and in vivo evaluation of longitudinal stent deformation during proximal optimisation
Toth GG et al

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al


10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al


10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007 May 15, 2022
TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution
Eltchaninoff H et al

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved