Robotic-Assisted Solutions for Invasive Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery and Routine On-Ward Tasks: A Narrative Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Robots are defined as programmable machines that can perform specified tasks. Medical robots are emerging solutions in the field of cardiology leveraging recent technological innovations of control systems, sensors, actuators, and imaging modalities. Robotic platforms are successfully applied for percutaneous coronary intervention, invasive cardiac electrophysiology procedures as well as surgical operations including minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass procedures, and structural heart diseases. Furthermore, machines are used as staff-assisting tools to support nurses with repetitive clinical duties i.e., food delivery. High precision and resolution allow for excellent maneuverability, enabling the performance of medical procedures in challenging anatomies that are difficult or impossible using conventional approaches. Moreover, robot-assisted techniques protect operators from occupational hazards, reducing exposure to ionizing radiation, and limiting risk of orthopedic injuries. Novel automatic systems provide advantages for patients, ensuring device stability with optimized utilization of fluoroscopy. The acceptance of robotic technology among healthcare providers as well as patients paves the way for widespread clinical application in the field of cardiovascular medicine. However, incorporation of robotic systems is associated with some disadvantages including high costs of installation and expensive disposable instrumentations, the need for large operating room space, and the necessity of dedicated training for operators due to the challenging learning curve of robotic-assisted interventional systems.

Related collections

Most cited references 96

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.

Craig R Smith, Martin Leon, Michael J Mack … (2011)

The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement. At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement. The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference. In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

0 comments Cited 559 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

Michael J Reardon, Nicolas Van Mieghem, Jeffrey J. Popma … (2017)

Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk.