The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2026
A comparison between visual, robotic, and intracoronary imaging lesion length assessment during robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leung James, French John, Xu James, Wales Kathryn, Kachwalla Hashim, Kaddapu Krishna, Fares Sarah, Dang Viet, Badie Tamer, Mussap Christian, Rajaratnam Rohan, Leung Dominic, Lo Sidney, Juergens Craig
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Inaccurate lesion length assessment can lead to adverse clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Robotic-assisted PCI (R-PCI) may provide more accurate lesion assessment. The authors aimed to compare the accuracy of visual, robotic, and intracoronary imaging-derived lesion length assessment.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients (69 lesions) who underwent R-PCI using the CorPath GRX (Siemens Healthineers) system were analyzed. The operator provided a visual estimate of lesion length, which was compared to the measurement using the robotic system. In cases in which intracoronary imaging (ICI) was performed (n=21), the visual and robotic estimates were compared against the ICI measurements, which were considered the gold standard.
RESULTS: The median visual length measurement was 23.0 mm (IQR: 18.0-28.0) and the median robotic visual length measurement was 24.0 mm (IQR: 18.7-33.0 mm). In only 10.1% of lesions did the visual and robotic estimates agree. In 66.7% of the lesions, the visual estimate was shorter than the robotic measurement, whereas the visual estimate was longer than the robotic measurement in 23.2% of lesions. Using a threshold of greater than 5 mm too long/short, 22 lesions (32%) were inaccurately measured. Both visual (r=0.82) and robotic (r=0.97) estimates had good correlation with ICI measurements; however, this difference in correlation was statistically significant (P = .004). Visual assessment consistently underestimated lesion length compared with ICI (mean difference -4.2 ± 6.9 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Visual assessment of lesion length often underestimates true lesion length. R-PCI may provide more accurate and reproducible lesion measurements, with better correlation and agreement with ICI measurements than visual estimation.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients (69 lesions) who underwent R-PCI using the CorPath GRX (Siemens Healthineers) system were analyzed. The operator provided a visual estimate of lesion length, which was compared to the measurement using the robotic system. In cases in which intracoronary imaging (ICI) was performed (n=21), the visual and robotic estimates were compared against the ICI measurements, which were considered the gold standard.
RESULTS: The median visual length measurement was 23.0 mm (IQR: 18.0-28.0) and the median robotic visual length measurement was 24.0 mm (IQR: 18.7-33.0 mm). In only 10.1% of lesions did the visual and robotic estimates agree. In 66.7% of the lesions, the visual estimate was shorter than the robotic measurement, whereas the visual estimate was longer than the robotic measurement in 23.2% of lesions. Using a threshold of greater than 5 mm too long/short, 22 lesions (32%) were inaccurately measured. Both visual (r=0.82) and robotic (r=0.97) estimates had good correlation with ICI measurements; however, this difference in correlation was statistically significant (P = .004). Visual assessment consistently underestimated lesion length compared with ICI (mean difference -4.2 ± 6.9 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Visual assessment of lesion length often underestimates true lesion length. R-PCI may provide more accurate and reproducible lesion measurements, with better correlation and agreement with ICI measurements than visual estimation.