Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

R. N. Ramadhan, D. Rampengan, S. Willyanto, Jihaan Farahiyah, R. M. Putra, Chaq El Chaq Zamzam Multazam, Konstantinos Bermpeis, M. Y. Alsagaff et al.

Systematic Reviews, 2025

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a fundamental aspect of coronary artery disease (CAD) management. However, manual PCI (M-PCI) procedures bring potential risks such as long-term radiation exposure, operator fatigue, and injuries, posing a threat of malignancies, orthopedic problems, cataracts, and other medical complications. The recently developed robotic-assisted PCI (R-PCI) system allows PCI to be performed from a protected cockpit, reducing radiation exposure, orthopedic injuries, and contrast media usage and improving stent placement accuracy for patients. This review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted PCI. A comprehensive search was conducted across six databases including PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Scopus, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest, covering studies published from October 2023 to November 2023. The outcomes of interest included safety assessment through (I) procedure-related adverse event rate and (II) mortality rate, while efficacy was assessed through (I) procedural time, (II) fluoroscopy time, (III) contrast volume, (IV) clinical procedural success, and (V) technical success. Quality appraisal was performed using ROBINS-I, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. A search across 6 databases resulted in 15 articles for analysis. We found that R-PCI is superior to M-PCI in reducing fluoroscopy time (MD = −3.68, 95% CI = −6.25 to −1.11, p = 0.005) and contrast volume (MD = −16.79, 95% CI = −22.28 to −11.30, p <…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free