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

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 [13.8-27.2] vs 14.4 min [10.4-24.3]; p=0.001) were documented in the rPCI versus mPCI cohort. After 12 months of follow-up, neither all-cause mortality (p=0.22) nor MACE (p=0.25) differed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS: rPCI was associated with longer fluoroscopy times compared with mPCI, though without increased use of contrast medium. One-year follow-up revealed no differences in all-cause mortality or MACE, supporting the safety of a robotic-assisted approach.