Robotic Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Initial Australian Experience.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) has been increasingly performed overseas. Initial observations have demonstrated its clinical efficacy and safety with additional potential benefits of more accurate lesion assessment and stent deployment, with reduced radiation exposure to operators and patients. However, data from randomised controlled trials or clinical experience from Australia are lacking. METHODS: This was a single-centre experience of all patients undergoing R-PCI as part of the run-in phase for an upcoming randomised clinical trial (ACTRN12623000480684). All R-PCI procedures were performed using the CorPath GRX robot (Corindus Vascular Robotics, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Key inclusion criteria included patients with obstructive coronary disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. Major exclusion criteria included ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock or lesions deemed unsuitable for R-PCI by the operator. Clinical success was defined as residual stenosis <30% without in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Technical success was defined as the completion of the R-PCI procedure without unplanned manual conversion. Procedural characteristics were compared between early (cases 1-3) and later (cases 4-21) cases. RESULTS: Twenty-one (21) patients with a total of 24 lesions were analysed. The mean age of patients was 66.5 years, and 66% of cases were male. Radial access was used in 18 cases (86%). Most lesions were American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology class B2/C (66%). Clinical success was achieved in 100% with manual conversion required in four cases (19%). No procedural complications or in-hospital MACE occurred. Compared to the early cases, later cases had a statistically significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (44.0mins vs 25.2mins, p<0.007), dose area product (967.3 dGy.cm2 vs 361.0dGy.cm2, p=0.01) and air kerma (2484.3mGy vs 797.4mGy, p=0.009) with no difference in contrast usage (136.7mL vs 131.4mL, p=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first clinical experience of R-PCI in Australia using the Corindus CorPath GRX robot. We achieved clinical success in all patients and technical success in the majority of cases with no procedural complications or in-hospital MACE. With increasing operator and staff experience, cases required shorter fluoroscopy time and less radiation exposure but similar contrast usage.

Patient tolerance and resource utilization associated with an arterial closure versus an external compression device after percutaneous coronary intervention.

We assessed patient tolerance and resource utilization of using the AngioSeal closure device versus assisted manual compression using the Femostop device after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients undergoing PCI with clean arterial access and no procedural hematoma were randomized to receive the AngioSeal or Femostop device to achieve femoral arterial hemostasis. Times from procedure end to removal from angiography table, hemostasis, ambulation, and hospital discharge were recorded. Bedside nursing/medical officer care time, vascular complications, and disposable use were also documented. Patient comfort was assessed using Present Pain Intensity and Visual Analogue scales at baseline, 4 hr, 8 hr, and the morning after the procedure. One hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled (62 AngioSeal, 60 Femostop). Patients in the AngioSeal group took longer to be removed from the angiography table (11 +/- 4 vs. 9 +/- 3 min; P = 0.002) compared with the Femostop group. Time to hemostasis (0.4 +/- 1.1 vs. 6.4 +/- 1.7 hr; P < 0.001) and ambulation (17 +/- 8 vs. 22 +/- 13 hr; P = 0.004) were less in the AngioSeal group, although time to discharge was not different. Nursing and medical officer time was no different. Disposables including device cost were higher in the AngioSeal group (209 dollars +/- 13 vs. 53 dollars +/- 9; P < 0.001). On a Visual Analogue scale, patients reported more pain at 4 hr (P < 0.001) and 8 hr (P < 0.001) in the Femostop group. The worst amount of pain at any time point was also more severe in the Femostop group (P < 0.001). Similar results were found on a Present Pain Intensity scale of pain. There were no differences in ultrasound-determined vascular complications (two each). Femoral access site closure using the AngioSeal device resulted in a small delay in leaving the angiography suite and a higher disposable cost compared to using the Femostop device. However, patients receiving the AngioSeal were able to ambulate sooner and reported less pain, which may justify the increased costs involved.

An unusual cause of hemolysis in a patient with an aortic valved conduit replacement.

Hemolytic anemia is a well-known but uncommon complication in patients with prosthetic heart valves. It is most commonly a result of prosthetic valve dysfunction, periprosthetic valvular regurgitation, or both. We report a case of a 41-year-old man who had a previous aortic valve and root replacement for acute proximal aortic dissection, now presenting with hemolytic anemia. This was a result of flow obstruction at the distal anastomosis of the aortic conduit by the presence of multiple dissection flaps resulting in severe flow turbulence. Although the pathology was at the blind spot for transesophageal echocardiography, the dissection flaps, the flow turbulence, and the degree of obstruction were well-demonstrated by this technique after careful manipulation of the probe and a high index of suspicion.