Zachary K Wegermann1,2, Rajesh V Swaminathan3,4, Sunil V Rao3,4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. zachary.wegermann@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. zachary.wegermann@duke.edu. 3. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the contemporary evidence for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary and vascular interventions, discussing its current capabilities, limitations, and potential future applications. RECENT FINDINGS: Robotic-assisted cardiovascular interventions significantly reduce radiation exposure and orthopedic strains for interventionalists, while maintaining high rates of device and clinical success. The PRECISE and CORA-PCI studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in increasingly complex coronary lesions. The RAPID study demonstrated similar findings in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). Subsequent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second-generation devices, with automations mimicking manual PCI techniques. While innovations such as telestenting continue to bring excitement to the field, major limitations remain-particularly the lack of randomized trials comparing robotic-assisted PCI with manual PCI. Robotic technology has successfully been applied to multiple cardiovascular procedures. There are limited data to evaluate outcomes with robotic-assisted PCI and other robotic-assisted cardiovascular procedures, but existing data show some promise of improving the precision of PCI while decreasing occupational hazards associated with radiation exposure.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the contemporary evidence for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary and vascular interventions, discussing its current capabilities, limitations, and potential future applications. RECENT FINDINGS: Robotic-assisted cardiovascular interventions significantly reduce radiation exposure and orthopedic strains for interventionalists, while maintaining high rates of device and clinical success. The PRECISE and CORA-PCI studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in increasingly complex coronary lesions. The RAPID study demonstrated similar findings in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). Subsequent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second-generation devices, with automations mimicking manual PCI techniques. While innovations such as telestenting continue to bring excitement to the field, major limitations remain-particularly the lack of randomized trials comparing robotic-assisted PCI with manual PCI. Robotic technology has successfully been applied to multiple cardiovascular procedures. There are limited data to evaluate outcomes with robotic-assisted PCI and other robotic-assisted cardiovascular procedures, but existing data show some promise of improving the precision of PCI while decreasing occupational hazards associated with radiation exposure.
Authors: Stephen B Solomon; Alexandru Patriciu; Mark E Bohlman; Louis R Kavoussi; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James A Goldstein; Stephen Balter; Michael Cowley; John Hodgson; Lloyd W Klein Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lloyd W Klein; Donald L Miller; Stephen Balter; Warren Laskey; David Haines; Alexander Norbash; Matthew A Mauro; James A Goldstein Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Marco A Costa; Dominick J Angiolillo; Mark Tannenbaum; Mitchell Driesman; Alan Chu; John Patterson; William Kuehl; Joseph Battaglia; Samir Dabbons; Fayez Shamoon; Bruce Flieshman; Alan Niederman; Theodore A Bass Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-04-09 Impact factor: 2.778