Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Purpose of reviewThe goal of this review is to describe the benefits and limitations of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the most important and recent clinical data, and the future applications as robotic technology continues to develop.Recent findingsRobotic-assisted PCI can reduce occupational hazards of ionizing radiation exposure and orthopedic injury to the interventional cardiologist while offering increased precision and fine control that may confer benefit to the patient. Recent studies have suggested the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted PCI, yet widespread use of the technology has not been fully adopted due to limitations of the current technology and high costs.SummaryRobotic-assisted PCI has potential to benefit both the operator and the patient. Despite some limitations of robotic-assisted PCI, it can safely and effectively be used in many patients with coronary artery disease requiring PCI. The value proposition for robotic-assisted PCI will depend on the evolution of robotic systems and its applicability to more complex coronary lesions, peripheral arterial interventions, and telemedicine.

[1]  Alexander Norbash,et al.  Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. , 2009, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[2]  D. L. Preston,et al.  Solid Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–1998 , 2007, Radiation research.

[3]  R. Madder,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention using a combination of robotics and telecommunications by an operator in a separate physical location from the patient: an early exploration into the feasibility of telestenting (the REMOTE-PCI study). , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[4]  E. Picano,et al.  Radiation exposure as an occupational hazard. , 2012, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  Juan F Granada,et al.  Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  E Vañó,et al.  Radiation exposure to medical staff in interventional and cardiac radiology. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Madan M Rehani,et al.  Radiation Cataract Risk in Interventional Cardiology Personnel , 2010, Radiation research.

[8]  E. Mahmud,et al.  The Development of Robotic Technology in Cardiac and Vascular Interventions , 2017, Rambam Maimonides medical journal.

[9]  Theodore A Bass,et al.  Impact of stent deployment procedural factors on long-term effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (final results of the multicenter prospective STLLR trial). , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[10]  E. Mahmud,et al.  Radiation‐associated lens changes in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Results from the IC‐CATARACT (CATaracts Attributed to RAdiation in the CaTh lab) study , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  E. Picano,et al.  Somatic DNA damage in interventional cardiologists: a case‐control study , 2005, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[12]  Amir Lerman,et al.  Current and Future Use of Robotic Devices to Perform Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Review , 2017, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[13]  E Vaño,et al.  Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  G. Weisz,et al.  Complex robotic‐enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention , 2014, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[15]  A. Ross,et al.  Prevalence of spinal disc disease among interventional cardiologists. , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  Hannes Deutschmann,et al.  Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Results of the RAPID Trial. , 2016, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

[17]  R. Swaminathan,et al.  Robotic‐assisted transradial diagnostic coronary angiography , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[18]  Mitul Patel,et al.  Demonstration of the Safety and Feasibility of Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Complex Coronary Lesions: Results of the CORA-PCI Study (Complex Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). , 2017, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[19]  Ariel Roguin,et al.  Brain and neck tumors among physicians performing interventional procedures. , 2013, The American journal of cardiology.

[20]  Madan M Rehani,et al.  Radiation-associated lens opacities in catheterization personnel: results of a survey and direct assessments. , 2013, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[21]  E. Mahmud,et al.  First‐in‐human robotic percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main stenosis , 2016, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[22]  A. J. O’Malley,et al.  Effects of stent length and lesion length on coronary restenosis. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[23]  E. Mahmud,et al.  Interoperator and intraoperator (in)accuracy of stent selection based on visual estimation , 2015, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[24]  G. Weisz,et al.  Occupational hazards of interventional cardiology. , 2013, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.

[25]  Paul T. Campbell,et al.  The impact of precise robotic lesion length measurement on stent length selection: ramifications for stent savings. , 2015, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.

[26]  R. Wilensky,et al.  Robotic‐assisted percutaneous coronary intervention , 2017, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[27]  J. Bonatti,et al.  Robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: benefits to the patient and the cardiologist , 2015, Expert review of cardiovascular therapy.

[28]  A James O'Malley,et al.  Comparison of thrombosis and restenosis risk from stent length of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[29]  Madan M Rehani,et al.  Risk for radiation‐induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? , 2010, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[30]  F. Eberli,et al.  Impact of stent overlap on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  K. Sim,et al.  Radiation-Induced Eye Lens Changes and Risk for Cataract in Interventional Cardiology , 2012, Cardiology.

[32]  Stephen Balter,et al.  Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[33]  E. Piccaluga,et al.  Occupational Health Risks in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Workers , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.