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)

Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and technical success of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in clinical practice, especially in complex lesions, and to determine the safety and clinical success of R-PCI compared with manual percutaneous coronary intervention (M-PCI).

Background: R-PCI is safe and feasible for simple coronary lesions. The utility of R-PCI for complex coronary lesions is unknown.

Methods: All consecutive PCI procedures performed robotically (study group) or manually (control group) over 18 months were included. R-PCI technical success, defined as the completion of the procedure robotically or with partial manual assistance and without a major adverse cardiovascular event, was determined. Procedures ineligible for R-PCI (i.e., atherectomy, planned 2-stent strategy for bifurcation lesion, chronic total occlusion requiring hybrid approach) were excluded for analysis from the M-PCI group. Clinical success, defined as completion of the PCI procedure without a major adverse cardiovascular event, procedure time, stent use, and fluoroscopy time were compared between groups.

Results: A total of 315 patients (mean age 67.7 ± 11.8 years; 78% men) underwent 334 PCI procedures (108 R-PCIs, 157 lesions, 78.3% type B2/C; 226 M-PCIs, 336 lesions, 68.8% type B2/C). Technical success with R-PCI was 91.7% (rate of manual assistance 11.1%, rate of manual conversion 7.4%, rate of major adverse cardiovascular events 0.93%). Clinical success (99.1% with R-PCI vs. 99.1% with M-PCI; p = 1.00), stent use (stents per procedure 1.59 ± 0.79 with R-PCI vs. 1.54 ± 0.75 with M-PCI; p = 0.73), and fluoroscopy time (18.2 ± 10.4 min with R-PCI vs. 19.2 ± 11.4 min with M-PCI; p = 0.39) were similar between the groups, although procedure time was longer in the R-PCI group (44:30 ± 26:04 min:s vs. 36:34 ± 23:03 min:s; p = 0.002). Propensity-matched analysis confirmed that procedure time was longer in the robotic group (42:59 ± 26:14 min:s with R-PCI vs. 34:01 ± 17:14 min:s with M-PCI; p = 0.007), although clinical success remained similar (98.8% with R-PCI vs. 100% with M-PCI; p = 1.00).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and high technical success of R-PCI for the treatment of complex coronary disease. Furthermore, comparable clinical outcomes, without an adverse effect on stent use or fluoroscopy time, were observed with R-PCI and M-PCI.