Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Marvin Jeuck, Timo Heidt, Thomas Maulhardt, Tau Hartikainen, Alexander Supady, Ingo Hilgendorf, Dennis Wolf, Klaus Kaier, Dirk Westermann, Jonathan Rilinger
{"title":"机器人经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与人工经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的一年疗效对比。","authors":"Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Marvin Jeuck, Timo Heidt, Thomas Maulhardt, Tau Hartikainen, Alexander Supady, Ingo Hilgendorf, Dennis Wolf, Klaus Kaier, Dirk Westermann, Jonathan Rilinger","doi":"10.1007/s00392-024-02524-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising technology for optimizing the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. For a better understanding of the potential of R-PCI in clinical routine compared to conventional manual PCI (M-PCI) both initial treatment success of the index procedure and long-term outcome have to be analysed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective evaluation from the FRiK (DRKS00023868) registry of all R-PCI cases with the CorPath GRX Cardiology by Siemens Healthineers and Corindus in the Freiburg University Heart Center between 04/2022 and 03/2023. Index procedure success and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, and 1-year outcome will be reported. Findings will be compared to a prospective control group of M-PCI patients treated by the same team of interventionalists during the same observation period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy patients received R-PCI and were included in the registry. PCI success rate was 100%, with 19% requiring manual assistance. No complications (MACE-major adverse cardiovascular events) occurred. Compared with 70 matched-pair M-PCI patients, there was a higher median procedural time (103 min vs. 67 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (18 min vs. 15 min, p = 0.002), and more contrast volume was used (180 ml vs. 160 ml, p = 0.041) in R-PCI vs. M-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference of the dose-area product (4062 vs. 3242 cGycm<sup>2</sup>, p = 0.361). One year after the intervention, there was no difference in mortality, rehospitalisation, unscheduled PCI or target vessel failure. Health-related quality of life evaluation 6 and 12 months after the index procedure (NYHA, CCS, SAQ7 and EQ-5D-5L) was similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>R-PCI is feasible and safe. Compared to M-PCI, index procedure success rate is high, safety profile is favourable, and manual assistance was required in only few cases. At 1-year follow-up results for R-PCI vs. M-PCI considering mortality, rehospitalisation, morbidity and target vessel failure were equal.</p>","PeriodicalId":10474,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"1000-1007"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283869/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Constantin von Zur Mühlen, Marvin Jeuck, Timo Heidt, Thomas Maulhardt, Tau Hartikainen, Alexander Supady, Ingo Hilgendorf, Dennis Wolf, Klaus Kaier, Dirk Westermann, Jonathan Rilinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00392-024-02524-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising technology for optimizing the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. For a better understanding of the potential of R-PCI in clinical routine compared to conventional manual PCI (M-PCI) both initial treatment success of the index procedure and long-term outcome have to be analysed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective evaluation from the FRiK (DRKS00023868) registry of all R-PCI cases with the CorPath GRX Cardiology by Siemens Healthineers and Corindus in the Freiburg University Heart Center between 04/2022 and 03/2023. Index procedure success and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, and 1-year outcome will be reported. Findings will be compared to a prospective control group of M-PCI patients treated by the same team of interventionalists during the same observation period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy patients received R-PCI and were included in the registry. PCI success rate was 100%, with 19% requiring manual assistance. No complications (MACE-major adverse cardiovascular events) occurred. Compared with 70 matched-pair M-PCI patients, there was a higher median procedural time (103 min vs. 67 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (18 min vs. 15 min, p = 0.002), and more contrast volume was used (180 ml vs. 160 ml, p = 0.041) in R-PCI vs. M-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference of the dose-area product (4062 vs. 3242 cGycm<sup>2</sup>, p = 0.361). One year after the intervention, there was no difference in mortality, rehospitalisation, unscheduled PCI or target vessel failure. Health-related quality of life evaluation 6 and 12 months after the index procedure (NYHA, CCS, SAQ7 and EQ-5D-5L) was similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>R-PCI is feasible and safe. Compared to M-PCI, index procedure success rate is high, safety profile is favourable, and manual assistance was required in only few cases. At 1-year follow-up results for R-PCI vs. M-PCI considering mortality, rehospitalisation, morbidity and target vessel failure were equal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1000-1007\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283869/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-024-02524-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-024-02524-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
One-year outcome of robotical vs. manual percutaneous coronary intervention.
Background: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) is a promising technology for optimizing the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. For a better understanding of the potential of R-PCI in clinical routine compared to conventional manual PCI (M-PCI) both initial treatment success of the index procedure and long-term outcome have to be analysed.
Methods: Prospective evaluation from the FRiK (DRKS00023868) registry of all R-PCI cases with the CorPath GRX Cardiology by Siemens Healthineers and Corindus in the Freiburg University Heart Center between 04/2022 and 03/2023. Index procedure success and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, and 1-year outcome will be reported. Findings will be compared to a prospective control group of M-PCI patients treated by the same team of interventionalists during the same observation period.
Results: Seventy patients received R-PCI and were included in the registry. PCI success rate was 100%, with 19% requiring manual assistance. No complications (MACE-major adverse cardiovascular events) occurred. Compared with 70 matched-pair M-PCI patients, there was a higher median procedural time (103 min vs. 67 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (18 min vs. 15 min, p = 0.002), and more contrast volume was used (180 ml vs. 160 ml, p = 0.041) in R-PCI vs. M-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference of the dose-area product (4062 vs. 3242 cGycm2, p = 0.361). One year after the intervention, there was no difference in mortality, rehospitalisation, unscheduled PCI or target vessel failure. Health-related quality of life evaluation 6 and 12 months after the index procedure (NYHA, CCS, SAQ7 and EQ-5D-5L) was similar in both groups.
Conclusion: R-PCI is feasible and safe. Compared to M-PCI, index procedure success rate is high, safety profile is favourable, and manual assistance was required in only few cases. At 1-year follow-up results for R-PCI vs. M-PCI considering mortality, rehospitalisation, morbidity and target vessel failure were equal.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Research in Cardiology is an international journal for clinical cardiovascular research. It provides a forum for original and review articles as well as critical perspective articles. Articles are only accepted if they meet stringent scientific standards and have undergone peer review. The journal regularly receives articles from the field of clinical cardiology, angiology, as well as heart and vascular surgery.
As the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, it gives a current and competent survey on the diagnosis and therapy of heart and vascular diseases.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
