Literature DB >> 29221959

Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: Reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion.

Jonathan Harrison1, Lawrence Ang1, Jesse Naghi1, Omid Behnamfar1, Ali Pourdjabbar1, Mitul P Patel1, Ryan R Reeves1, Ehtisham Mahmud2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is feasible for simple coronary lesions.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion during R-PCI in clinical practice.
METHODS: The CorPath 200 System (Corindus, Waltham, MA) enables the operator to sit in a radiation-shielded cockpit and remotely control intracoronary devices including guidewires, balloons, and stents. Consecutive R-PCI procedures performed over 18months were analyzed to identify reasons for planned or unplanned manual assistance or manual conversion, and categorized as due to 1) adverse event; 2) technical limitation of the robotic platform; or 3) limited guide catheter/wire support.
RESULTS: During the study period, 108 R-PCI procedures (68.1±11.0years, 77.8% men, 69.4% elective PCI, 78.3% type B2/C lesions, and 50.3% left anterior descending/left main target lesion segment) were performed. High robotic technical success (91.7%) and clinical procedural success (99.1%) were achieved. Twenty procedures (18.5%) required either planned partial manual assistance (3.7%), unplanned partial manual assistance (7.4%), or manual conversion (7.4%). Among these procedures, manual assistance/conversion was required in 3 procedures for an adverse event (15%), 8 for technical limitation of the robotic platform (40%), and 9 for guide catheter/wire support issues (45%).
CONCLUSIONS: High clinical success with R-PCI for a complex lesion cohort is possible with only occasional partial manual assistance or manual conversion. The majority of procedures requiring manual assistance/conversion were due to limited guide catheter/wire support or robotic platform limitations, rather than occurrence of adverse events.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complex PCI; Manual assistance; PCI; Robotic; Robotic stenting

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29221959     DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.11.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med        ISSN: 1878-0938


  6 in total

Review 1.  Cath Lab Robotics: Paradigm Change in Interventional Cardiology?

Authors:  Zachary K Wegermann; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  A Review of Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology.

Authors:  C B Beaman; N Kaneko; P M Meyers; S Tateshima
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.966

3.  Feasibility and safety of robotic PCI in China: first in man experience in Asia.

Authors:  Ke-Fei Dou; Chen-Xi Song; Chao-Wei Mu; Wei-Xian Yang; Cheng-Gang Zhu; Lei Feng; Jue Chen; Lei Song; Yu Ning; Bo Xu
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.327

4.  First Experience of Robotic-assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Japan.

Authors:  Koutaro Kagiyama; Takafumi Ueno; Yoshiaki Mitsutake; Kazunori Yamaji; Takashi Ishimatsu; Ken-Ichiro Sasaki; Yoshihiro Fukumoto
Journal:  Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 1.271

Review 5.  Radiation protection for the interventional cardiologist: Practical approach and innovations.

Authors:  Alejandro Gutierrez-Barrios; Dolores Cañadas-Pruaño; Inmaculada Noval-Morillas; Livia Gheorghe; Ricardo Zayas-Rueda; German Calle-Perez
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2022-01-26

6.  Remote Surgery Using a Neuroendovascular Intervention Support Robot Equipped with a Sensing Function: Experimental Verification.

Authors:  Shigeru Miyachi; Yoshitaka Nagano; Reo Kawaguchi; Tomotaka Ohshima; Hiroki Tadauchi
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2021-05-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.