Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2025
Robotic Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: May 29, 2015
Robotic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness With Procedural
Naveen N Sooknanan, Sehrish Memon, Jon C George1
1Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA 19141 USA. jcgeorgemd@gmail.com.
Background:
The COVID-19 pandemic raised many questions, including the need to maintain distancing and the importance of full personal protection equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) can be advantageous during a pandemic to facilitate procedural distancing for cath lab personnel and to decrease the cumulative amount of PPE employed.
Methods:
All patients who underwent R-PCI during the early phase of the pandemic were evaluated at a single institution. Procedural characteristics, complexity of disease, and use of adjunctive imaging or physiology were queried. Mean R-PCI time, procedure and fluoroscopy times, radiation dose, and contrast volume were collected. Cost of PPE incurred with R-PCI was evaluated in comparison with traditional cases. Furthermore, procedural distancing from patients for operators was objectively quantified to compare with traditional cath lab cases.
Results:
Thirteen patients were treated using R-PCI. Radial access site was utilized in 54% and the left circumflex artery was treated most frequently (in 50% of cases). The complexity of cases performed was illustrated by revascularization of chronic total occlusions in 2 patients (14%) as well as adjunctive intravascular ultrasound or instantaneous wave-free ratio in 4 patients (29%). Mean R-PCI time was 45.38 minutes, manual time was 25.66 minutes, and total procedure time was 71.08 minutes. Average fluoroscopy time was 18.27 minutes, contrast volume was 143.85 mL, and radiation dose was 747.15 mGy. R-PCI was more cost effective, with total average PPE cost of $330.71 in comparison with $496.08 for traditional PCI (absolute difference, $165.36). Furthermore, R-PCI demonstrated substantial procedural distancing of operators from patients (8.14 feet for R-PCI vs 2.75 feet for traditional PCI; absolute difference, 5.39 feet).
Conclusion:
R-PCI could be a promising strategy during a pandemic by facilitating procedural distancing, minimizing staffing exposure risk, and decreasing PPE cost.
