Abstract
Purpose of Review
To review the contemporary evidence for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary and vascular interventions, discussing its current capabilities, limitations, and potential future applications.
Recent Findings
Robotic-assisted cardiovascular interventions significantly reduce radiation exposure and orthopedic strains for interventionalists, while maintaining high rates of device and clinical success. The PRECISE and CORA-PCI studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in increasingly complex coronary lesions. The RAPID study demonstrated similar findings in peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). Subsequent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second-generation devices, with automations mimicking manual PCI techniques. While innovations such as telestenting continue to bring excitement to the field, major limitations remain—particularly the lack of randomized trials comparing robotic-assisted PCI with manual PCI.
Summary
Robotic technology has successfully been applied to multiple cardiovascular procedures. There are limited data to evaluate outcomes with robotic-assisted PCI and other robotic-assisted cardiovascular procedures, but existing data show some promise of improving the precision of PCI while decreasing occupational hazards associated with radiation exposure.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Autschbach R, Onnasch JF, Falk V, Walther T, Krüger M, Schilling LO, et al. The Leipzig experience with robotic valve surgery. J Card Surg. 2000;15(1):82–7.
Bismuth J, Duran C, Stankovic M, Gersak B, Lumsden AB. A first-in-man study of the role of flexible robotics in overcoming navigation challenges in the iliofemoral arteries. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(2 Suppl):14S–9S.
Li MM, Hamady MS, Bicknell CD, Riga CV. Flexible robotic catheters in the visceral segment of the aorta: advantages and limitations. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;59(3):317–21.
Perera AH, Riga CV, Monzon L, Gibbs RG, Bicknell CD, Hamady M. Robotic arch catheter placement reduces cerebral embolization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;53(3):362–9.
Pappone C, Vicedomini G, Manguso F, Gugliotta F, Mazzone P, Gulletta S, et al. Robotic magnetic navigation for atrial fibrillation ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(7):1390–400.
Rillig A, Meyerfeldt U, Birkemeyer R, Treusch F, Kunze M, Miljak T, et al. Remote robotic catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: how fast is it learned and what benefits can be earned? J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2010;29(2):109–17.
Solomon SB, Patriciu A, Bohlman ME, Kavoussi LR, Stoianovici D. Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician. Radiology. 2002;225(1):277–82.
Srivastava S, Barrera R, Quismundo S. One hundred sixty-four consecutive beating heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass cases without intraoperative conversion. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(5):1463–8.
Ullah W, McLean A, Hunter RJ, Baker V, Richmond L, Cantor EJ, et al. Randomized trial comparing robotic to manual ablation for atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(11):1862–9.
Gruntzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE. Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(2):61–8.
Beyar R, Gruberg L, Deleanu D, Roguin A, Almagor Y, Cohen S, et al. Remote-control percutaneous coronary interventions: concept, validation, and first-in-humans pilot clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(2):296–300.
Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, Delgado JA, Marshall JJ, Vetrovec GW, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(15):1596–600.
• Mahmud E, 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). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(13):1320–7 Findings of this study suggest robotic-assisted PCI is safe and feasible compared with manual PCI in treatment of complex coronary artery lesions.
Smitson CC, Ang L, Pourdjabbar A, Reeves R, Patel M, Mahmud E. Safety and feasibility of a novel, second-generation robotic-assisted system for percutaneous coronary intervention: first-in-human report. J Invasive Cardiol. 2018;30(4):152–6.
Granada JF, Delgado JA, Uribe MP, Fernandez A, Blanco G, Leon MB, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel robotic-assisted coronary angioplasty system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(4):460–5.
Al Nooryani A, Aboushokka W. Rotate-on-retract procedural automation for robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: first clinical experience. Case Rep Cardiol. 2018;2018:6086034.
Madder R, Lombardi W, Parikh M, Kandzari D, Grantham JA, Rao S. TCT-539 impact of a novel advanced robotic wiring algorithm on time to wire a coronary artery bifurcation in a porcine model. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(18 Supplement):B223.
Weisz G, Smilowitz NR, Metzger DC, Caputo R, Delgado J, Marshall JJ, et al. The association between experience and proficiency with robotic-enhanced coronary intervention-insights from the PRECISE multi-center study. Acute Card Care. 2014;16(2):37–40.
Mahmud E, Schmid F, Kalmar P, Deutschmann H, Hafner F, Rief P, et al. Feasibility and safety of robotic peripheral vascular interventions: results of the RAPID trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(19):2058–64.
Behnamfar O, Pourdjabbar A, Yalvac E, Reeves R, Mahmud E. First case of robotic percutaneous vascular intervention for below-the-knee peripheral arterial disease. J Invasive Cardiol. 2016;28(11):E128–31.
Allencherril J, et al. Outcomes of robotically assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Invasive Cardiol. 2019;31(8):199–203.
Walters D, Reeves RR, Patel M, Naghi J, Ang L, Mahmud E. Complex robotic compared to manual coronary interventions: 6- and 12-month outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(4):613–7.
Campbell PT, Kruse KR, Kroll CR, Patterson JY, Esposito MJ. The impact of precise robotic lesion length measurement on stent length selection: ramifications for stent savings. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16(6):348–50.
Campbell PT, Mahmud E, Marshall JJ. Interoperator and intraoperator (in) accuracy of stent selection based on visual estimation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(7):1177–83.
Bezerra HG, et al. Longitudinal geographic miss (LGM) in robotic assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary interventions. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28(5):449–55.
Costa MA, Angiolillo DJ, Tannenbaum M, Driesman M, Chu A, Patterson J, 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). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(12):1704–11.
DeRouen TA, Murray JA, Owen W. Variability in the analysis of coronary arteriograms. Circulation. 1977;55(2):324–8.
Galbraith JE, Murphy ML, de Soyza N. Coronary angiogram interpretation. Interobserver variability. JAMA. 1978;240(19):2053–6.
Goldberg RK, Kleiman NS, Minor ST, Abukhalil J, Raizner AE. Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography to visual estimates of lesion severity pre and post PTCA. Am Heart J. 1990;119(1):178–84.
Fleming RM, Kirkeeide RL, Smalling RW, Gould KL, Stuart Y. Patterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18(4):945–51.
Andreassi MG, Piccaluga E, Guagliumi G, del Greco M, Gaita F, Picano E. Occupational health risks in cardiac catheterization laboratory workers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):e003273.
Picano E, Vano E. Radiation exposure as an occupational hazard. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(6):649–53.
Vano E, et al. Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(941):383–8.
Hasan F, Bonatti J. Robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: benefits to the patient and the cardiologist. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13(11):1165–8.
Klein, L.W., et al., Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2018
Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A, et al. Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(7 Suppl):S278–83.
Goldstein JA, Balter S, Cowley M, Hodgson J, Klein LW, on behalf of the Interventional Committee of the Society of Cardiovascular Interventions. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(4):407–11.
Almasoud A, Walters D, Mahmud E. Robotically performed excimer laser coronary atherectomy: proof of feasibility. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92(4):713–6.
Harrison J, et al. Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(5 Pt A):526–31.
Lo N, Gutierrez JA, Swaminathan RV. Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2018;20(2):14.
Kapur V, Smilowitz NR, Weisz G. Complex robotic-enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(6):915–21.
•• Madder RD, 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). EuroIntervention. 2017;12(13):569–1576 This study demonstrated the feasibility of robotic-assisted PCI via remote operation of the robotic system from a different, physically separate, location than the patient.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Zachary K. Wegermann and Sunil V. Rao declare that they have no conflict of interest. Rajesh V. Swaminathan reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Corindus Vascular Robotics.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wegermann, Z.K., Swaminathan, R.V. & Rao, S.V. Cath Lab Robotics: Paradigm Change in Interventional Cardiology?. Curr Cardiol Rep 21, 119 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1218-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1218-5