Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026
Robotic Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: May 29, 2015
Impact of Robotic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (R-PCI) With and Without CCTA-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes and
Michele Mattia Viscusi1,2, Konstantinos Bermpeis1, Dario Tino Bertolone1,2
1Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV-Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.
Background:
Several studies have confirmed the safety and efficacy of robotic assisted coronary interventions for simple and complex coronary lesions. However, in the real-world clinical setting the currently available evidence is still inconclusive with regard to clinical outcomes. In terms of financial sustainability, the emerging use of pre-PCI Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) may potentially impact the overall patient journey and related costs. However, the role of CCTA guidance in elective robotic-assisted revascularizations and its potential impact on hospital economics has never been investigated. Therefore, we aimed to assess the clinical impact of R-PCI according to procedural complexity and its potential financial sustainability when integrated with CCTA guidance.
Methods:
Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the latest clinical follow-up available have been prospectively evaluated in a single center cohort of 111 patients undergoing elective R-PCI (CorPath, Corindus GRX Robotic Drive, Boston, MA). The study population was subsequently divided into two groups according to either the median Syntax Score (SS = 14) as a surrogate of procedural complexity or the adoption of CCTA-guidance. Additionally, both periprocedural and in-hospital outcomes have been investigated in the overall cohort and in the subgroups.
Results:
Overall, MACE occurred in 5.4% of the patients at a median follow-up of 309 days. Procedural complexity was associated with significantly longer procedural time and radiation exposure (SS ≥ 14: 94.5 ± 32.1 vs. 78.7 ± 25.5 min, p = 0.011, and 32.7 ± 30.9 vs. 22.5 ± 19.8 mSv, p = 0.010, respectively), but not with increased in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes. Additionally, patients undergoing CCTA-guided R-PCI had a significantly higher rate of same-day-discharge (SDD-64.6% vs. 44.2% respectively, p = 0.034) than those without CCTA support.
Conclusion:
R-PCI appears safe and effective regardless the procedural complexity. Moreover, the integration of robotics and CCTA-guidance appears to have beneficial impact on hospital economics by optimizing resource utilization and improving patient selection for percutaneous revascularization.
