Robotic-assisted PCI – insights from a monocenter registry

Background

Robotics in interventional cardiology is a rapidly evolving technique, which is still in an early phase of development and clinical application. Beside the pivotal studies, there is limited real world data on success rates and safety of this new technology.

Purpose

To investigate the success rate as well as the safety profile of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) and compare it with manual PCI (M-PCI).

Methods

We report preliminary data of our ongoing, prospective FRiK registry, started in mid 2021. This registry focuses on success rates and safety, radiation dose of patients and personnel, long-term outcome (after 6, 12 and 24 months), as well as on economic aspects and the learning curve of the interventionalists. Moreover, the R-PCI is compared with the M-PCI in these categories.

Results

So far, 51 patients (age 69 (62–80) years, BMI 28.4 (25.2–32) kg/m2, 74.5% male), received R-PCI. PCI success rate was 100%, with 15% requiring manual assistance (Figure 1). Rate of complications (myocardial infarction after PCI, dissection, stent thrombosis, pericardial effusion, target lesion revascularization and MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events) was 0%.

Compared with 41 M-PCI patients (Table 1), treated by the same interventionalists, there was a higher median procedural time (diagnostic and intervention) 106 (82–127) min vs. 71 (54–93) min (p<0.001) and fluoroscopy time 20.3 (14.8–28.5) min vs. 14.8 (10.4–22.4) min (p=0.012) in R-PCI patients. However, there was no significant difference between the dose-area product 4662.4 (3019.4–6399.2) cGy cm2 vs. 4193.9 (2759.9–6254.3) cGy cm2 (p=0.487) and contrast volume use 200 (150–280) ml vs. 180 (145–255) ml (p=0.587).

Conclusion

Preliminary results of R-PCI showed a high success rate, low rates for need of manual assistance, and a very high safety profile without any complications. The dose-area product and contrast volume use were comparable between R-PCI and M-PCI, whereas R-PCI showed a longer procedural and fluoroscopy time. Future steps will include a larger number of cases and definitions of patient cases with optimal eligibility for R-PCI.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Impact of pulse pressure on clinical outcome in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) patients

Background

Hemodynamic response after successful extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is very heterogeneous. Pulse pressure (PP) as an easy to access surrogate parameter and correlate for myocardial damage or recovery from it, might be a valuable tool to estimate the outcome of these patients.

Purpose

To investigate the predictive value of the surrogate parameter PP in eCPR patients.

Methods

We report retrospective data of a single-centre registry of eCPR patients, treated at our Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care Unit between 01/2017 and 01/2020. The association between PP of the first 10 days after eCPR and hospital survival was investigated. Moreover, patients were divided into three groups according to their PP (low (0–9 mmHg), mid (10–29 mmHg) and high (≥30 mmHg)) at each time point.

Results

143 patients (age 63 years, 74.1% male, 40% OHCA, average low flow time 49 min) were analysed. Overall hospital survival rate was 28%. A low PP both early after eCPR (after 1, 3, 6 and 12 hours) and in the further course after day 1 to day 8 was associated with reduced hospital survival. At each time point (1 hour to day 5) the classification of patients into a low, mid and high PP group was able to categorize the patients for a low (5–20%), moderate (20–40%) and high (50–70%) survival rate. A multivariable analysis showed that the mean PP of the first 24 hours was an independent predictor for survival (p=0.008, figure 1).

Conclusion

In this analysis, PP occurred to be a valuable parameter to estimate survival and maybe support clinical decision making in the further course of patients after eCPR.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. Survival of eCPR patients by mean 24hPP