OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) compared to traditional manual percutaneous coronary intervention (M-PCI).
METHODS This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial enrolled patients with coronary heart disease who met the inclusion criteria and had indications for elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to either the R-PCI group or the M-PCI group. Primary endpoints were clinical and technical success rates. Clinical success was defined as visually estimated residual post-percutaneous coronary intervention stenosis < 30% with no 30-day major adverse cardiac events. Technical success in the R-PCI group was defined as successful completion of percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system, without conversion to M-PCI in the event of a guidewire or balloon/stent catheter that was unable to cross the vessel or was poorly supported by the catheter. Secondary endpoints included total procedure time, percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, operator radiation exposure, air kerma, and dose-area product.
RESULTS The trial enrolled 152 patients (R-PCI: 73 patients, M-PCI: 79 patients). Lesions were predominantly B2/C type (73.6%). Both groups achieved 100% clinical success rate. No major adverse cardiac events occurred during the 30-day follow-up. The R-PCI group had a technical success rate of 100%. The R-PCI group had longer total procedure and fluoroscopy times, but lower operator radiation exposure. The percutaneous coronary intervention procedure time, contrast volume, air kerma, and dose-area product were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS For certain complex lesions, performing percutaneous coronary intervention using the ETcath200 robot-assisted system is safe and effective and does not result in conversion to M-PCI.
DownLoad: