Impact of Total Coronary Revascularization Via Left Anterior Thoracotomy (TCRAT) vs. Robotic-Assisted Harvesting of LIMA (ITcrats)
NCT ID: NCT06988735
Last Updated: 2025-06-04
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
182 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-07-31
Study Completion Date
2027-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The two types of total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) might have their potential benefits and disadvantages. The proposed randomized clinical trial here will compare 'RA-TCRAT' with 'Nonrobotic TCRAT' procedures concerning effects on hospital stays, overall healthcare costs, safety, and feasibility. If the two TCRAT procedures are comparably effective and safe, the 'Nonrobotic TCRAT' procedure is probably preferred as it seems easier to use. However, if the 'Nonrobotic TCRAT' procedure is less effective and less safe than the "robotic TCRAT,' that procedure should be preferred.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Robot Assisted Percutaneous Cardiovascular Intervention as a Strategy to Reduce or Risk of Intra-Procedure Contamination by COVID-19 and Other Respiratory Viruses
NCT04379453
Coronary Artery Disease
UNKNOWN
NA
Comparing Measurements of the Aortic Valve Taken During Surgery With Those Obtained Before Surgery Using Computed Tomography Scans, in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement
NCT07125469
Valvular Heart Disease
RECRUITING
NA
Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in Brazil: Cost-Utility Analysis of TAVI vs SAVR
NCT04067089
Aortic Stenosis
UNKNOWN
NA
Reconstruction of Diffusely Diseased Left Anterior Descending with Left Internal Mammary Artery On-lay Patch or Saphenous Vein Patch Without Endarterectomy by Opening the Whole Wall of the Diseased Segment(s) Has Less Risk and Fewer Complications Compared to Endarterectomy Technique
NCT06835114
LAD (Left Anterior Descending) Coronary Artery Stenosis
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
TAVR: The Impact of Prothesis Positioning on Valvular and Coronary Hemodynamics
NCT06896227
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Commissural Alignment
+6 more
RECRUITING
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Rationale
A recent study involving 1,195 patients from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Registry undergoing robotic-assisted-minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) by 114 surgeons between 2014 and 2019 showed that surgeons can quickly reduce complication rates by building up the learning curve. It is yet unclear if robotic-assisted harvesting of the left internal thoracic artery (RA-LITA) would offer a benefit over total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) in terms of the postoperative hospital stay and cost of healthcare. That raises the need to examine the impact of RA-LITA compared with TCRAT on these crucial clinical outcomes.
Objective
The primary objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) is, compared with TCRAT, to examine the impact of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft (RA-CABG) on the length of hospital stay in diverse patients scheduled for elective surgical coronary revascularization.
Secondary objectives include identifying the overall costs and charges of healthcare, operating room and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, postoperative bleeding, need for re-explorative surgery or transfusion, postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)\], acute kidney injury (AKI), and surgical related complications and 30-days and 3-months need for hospital re-admission and survival after adult cardiac surgical coronary revascularization using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).
Hypothesis
It is hypothesized that RA-total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) might have shorter hospital stays than the nonrobotic assisted TCRAT in adult patients undergoing elective coronary revascularization surgery.
Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit, and group relatedness
There is no expected patient burden or risk other than the estimated risks for the coronary revascularization surgery. Patient burden and risks are low, and the two surgical approaches (nonrobotic TCRAT and RA-CABG/TCRAT) are being used widely and interchangeably. The collection of patients' outcome data from hospital charts and (electronic) medical records systems causes no harm to the patients; patients will not experience any discomfort from any of the study interventions because they will be performed during general anesthesia.
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
3.1 TCRAT has a significant impact on outcomes.
The main goals of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) are to avoid sternotomy, reduce postoperative blood product transfusion, shorten ventilation times, shorten intensive care and hospital stays, improve the quality of postoperative analgesia, and expedite physical recovery.
TECRAT emerged as a promising MICS procedure. TCRAT has been shown to have a likely success rate of 95%, defined as complete revascularization in a cohort of 102 multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) patients with diverse age, body mass index (BMI), and left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in conjunction with low incidences of in-hospital mortality, CVA, AMI and need for revascularization in 2%. Muliarterial TCRAT increased the aortic cross-clamping and operating room times without further improving these outcomes or shortening hospital stays.
3.2 Robotic totally endoscopic CABG (TE-CABG)
Robotic TE-CABG is technically more challenging than RA-CABG. Kofer et al. compared the 12 years of single-center experience performing conventional CABG or TE-CABG in a propensity score-matched retrospective study. They identified similar age groups, log European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), perioperative mortality, AMI, and stroke rate, and long-term survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 1, 5, and 10 years after surgery between the two groups. TE-CABG took 40% longer CPB and 67% cross-clamp times. That doubts the superiority of TE-CABG over the RA-MIDCAB or RA-TCRAT.
3.3. RA-MIDCAB
MIDCAB is performed without the use of CPB with associated fewer complications such as perioperative CVA due to avoidance of aortic manipulation. CPB might be required in rare cases during MIDCAB procedures that necessitate peripheral cannulation to avoid a sternotomy, which could be challenging in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease and morbidly obese patients who would benefit the most from avoiding a sternotomy. A RA-MIDCAB procedure may be possible in such patients.
Patrick et al. demonstrated a growing learning curve after the 10th RA-MIDCAB procedure in terms of reduced rates of approach conversion (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.84) and improved procedural success (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.84). A cohort of 605 RA-MIDCAB patients performed at a single center over 18 years showed a reduced conversion rate to sternotomy for any cause, from 16.0% of the first 200 cases to 6.9% of the last 405 patients. The mortality rate was 0.3%, the patency rate of the LITA-to-left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery anastomosis was 97.4%, surgical re-exploration for bleeding in 1.8% of patients, and the transfusion rate was 9.2%.
A previous study found that compared with those who underwent conventional CABG (n=235), patients who received RA-CABG (n=281) had fewer risk factors, lower in-hospital and long-term mortality but had comparable incidences of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), AMI, and stroke. Interestingly, neither the residual Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score nor completeness of revascularization were related to the long-term mortality.
3.4. RA-CABG: An emerged approach to improve outcomes
A retrospective study demonstrated that compared with MIDCAB, RA-CABG had comparable complete revascularization, one-year graft patency, surgical conversion, mortality rates, more extended operating room stays, and shorter ICU stays. To our knowledge, no RCT compares the impacts of TCRAT and RA-TCRAT CABG on successful revascularization, mortality, and postoperative CVA and AMI.
3.5. Feasibility
The two types of TCRAT (nonrobotic or R.A.) have never been compared in terms of feasibility. 'RA-TCRAT' procedures are more complex to perform and might take longer durations to be accomplished, increasing the overall healthcare costs, which could be unacceptable for both the stakeholders. 'Non-RA-TCRAT' procedures are more straightforward to perform and are thus easier to learn, but most importantly, they take much less time.
A recent study involving 1,195 patients from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Registry undergoing robotic-assisted-minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) by 114 surgeons between 2014 and 2019 showed that surgeons can quickly reduce complication rates by building up the learning curve. It is yet unclear if robotic-assisted harvesting of the left internal thoracic artery (RA-LITA) would offer a benefit over total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) in terms of the postoperative hospital stay and cost of healthcare. That raises the need to examine the impact of RA-LITA compared with TCRAT on these crucial clinical outcomes.
Objective
The primary objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) is, compared with TCRAT, to examine the impact of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft (RA-CABG) on the length of hospital stay in diverse patients scheduled for elective surgical coronary revascularization.
Secondary objectives include identifying the overall costs and charges of healthcare, operating room and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, postoperative bleeding, need for re-explorative surgery or transfusion, postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)\], acute kidney injury (AKI), and surgical related complications and 30-days and 3-months need for hospital re-admission and survival after adult cardiac surgical coronary revascularization using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).
Hypothesis
It is hypothesized that RA-total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) might have shorter hospital stays than the nonrobotic assisted TCRAT in adult patients undergoing elective coronary revascularization surgery.
Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit, and group relatedness
There is no expected patient burden or risk other than the estimated risks for the coronary revascularization surgery. Patient burden and risks are low, and the two surgical approaches (nonrobotic TCRAT and RA-CABG/TCRAT) are being used widely and interchangeably. The collection of patients' outcome data from hospital charts and (electronic) medical records systems causes no harm to the patients; patients will not experience any discomfort from any of the study interventions because they will be performed during general anesthesia.
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
3.1 TCRAT has a significant impact on outcomes.
The main goals of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) are to avoid sternotomy, reduce postoperative blood product transfusion, shorten ventilation times, shorten intensive care and hospital stays, improve the quality of postoperative analgesia, and expedite physical recovery.
TECRAT emerged as a promising MICS procedure. TCRAT has been shown to have a likely success rate of 95%, defined as complete revascularization in a cohort of 102 multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) patients with diverse age, body mass index (BMI), and left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in conjunction with low incidences of in-hospital mortality, CVA, AMI and need for revascularization in 2%. Muliarterial TCRAT increased the aortic cross-clamping and operating room times without further improving these outcomes or shortening hospital stays.
3.2 Robotic totally endoscopic CABG (TE-CABG)
Robotic TE-CABG is technically more challenging than RA-CABG. Kofer et al. compared the 12 years of single-center experience performing conventional CABG or TE-CABG in a propensity score-matched retrospective study. They identified similar age groups, log European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), perioperative mortality, AMI, and stroke rate, and long-term survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 1, 5, and 10 years after surgery between the two groups. TE-CABG took 40% longer CPB and 67% cross-clamp times. That doubts the superiority of TE-CABG over the RA-MIDCAB or RA-TCRAT.
3.3. RA-MIDCAB
MIDCAB is performed without the use of CPB with associated fewer complications such as perioperative CVA due to avoidance of aortic manipulation. CPB might be required in rare cases during MIDCAB procedures that necessitate peripheral cannulation to avoid a sternotomy, which could be challenging in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease and morbidly obese patients who would benefit the most from avoiding a sternotomy. A RA-MIDCAB procedure may be possible in such patients.
Patrick et al. demonstrated a growing learning curve after the 10th RA-MIDCAB procedure in terms of reduced rates of approach conversion (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.84) and improved procedural success (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.84). A cohort of 605 RA-MIDCAB patients performed at a single center over 18 years showed a reduced conversion rate to sternotomy for any cause, from 16.0% of the first 200 cases to 6.9% of the last 405 patients. The mortality rate was 0.3%, the patency rate of the LITA-to-left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery anastomosis was 97.4%, surgical re-exploration for bleeding in 1.8% of patients, and the transfusion rate was 9.2%.
A previous study found that compared with those who underwent conventional CABG (n=235), patients who received RA-CABG (n=281) had fewer risk factors, lower in-hospital and long-term mortality but had comparable incidences of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), AMI, and stroke. Interestingly, neither the residual Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score nor completeness of revascularization were related to the long-term mortality.
3.4. RA-CABG: An emerged approach to improve outcomes
A retrospective study demonstrated that compared with MIDCAB, RA-CABG had comparable complete revascularization, one-year graft patency, surgical conversion, mortality rates, more extended operating room stays, and shorter ICU stays. To our knowledge, no RCT compares the impacts of TCRAT and RA-TCRAT CABG on successful revascularization, mortality, and postoperative CVA and AMI.
3.5. Feasibility
The two types of TCRAT (nonrobotic or R.A.) have never been compared in terms of feasibility. 'RA-TCRAT' procedures are more complex to perform and might take longer durations to be accomplished, increasing the overall healthcare costs, which could be unacceptable for both the stakeholders. 'Non-RA-TCRAT' procedures are more straightforward to perform and are thus easier to learn, but most importantly, they take much less time.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization Surgery
Elective Surgery
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial- and patient-blinded comparative trial in patients scheduled for surgical coronary revascularization. The RCT will be conducted according to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines and comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The RCT will be registered in a public registry, and the study protocol with its statistical analysis plan will be published before the enrollment of the first patient.
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Participants
Further minimization of bias will be achieved by involving two independent investigators. The researcher responsible for performing the surgery will perform the Randomization directly before the start of anesthesia. A second investigator, who will not be blinded for the randomization arm, will score the primary and secondary postoperative outcome measures.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Nonrobotic TCRAT
Nonrobotic TCRAT for CABG
Group Type
PLACEBO_COMPARATOR
Nonrobotic TCRAT
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Nonrobotic TCRAT for CABG
Robotic TCRAT
Robotic TCRAT for CABG
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Robotic TCRAT
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Robotic TCRAT for CABG
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Nonrobotic TCRAT
Nonrobotic TCRAT for CABG
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Robotic TCRAT
Robotic TCRAT for CABG
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Scheduled for any type of elective minimally invasive coronary revascularization surgery.
* Using CPB.
* General anesthesia is provided in an endotracheally intubated patient
* Using CPB.
* General anesthesia is provided in an endotracheally intubated patient
Exclusion Criteria
* Planned for coronary revascularization surgery without CPB;
* Planned for a combined coronary revascularization surgery and a valve or intra-cardiac surgery;
* LVEF less than 35%;
* Preoperative cardiogenic shock;
* Pregnancy;
* Scheduled for re-do or emergency surgery;
* Consent for another interventional study during anesthesia;
* No written informed consent;
* Preoperative need for mechanical circulatory support;
* Preoperative need for invasive ventilatory support;
* Planned for a combined coronary revascularization surgery and a valve or intra-cardiac surgery;
* LVEF less than 35%;
* Preoperative cardiogenic shock;
* Pregnancy;
* Scheduled for re-do or emergency surgery;
* Consent for another interventional study during anesthesia;
* No written informed consent;
* Preoperative need for mechanical circulatory support;
* Preoperative need for invasive ventilatory support;
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Mohamed R El Tahan
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Mohamed R El Tahan
Consultant in Cardiac Anesthesia
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Mohamed R El Tahan, MD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Consultant in Cardiac Anesthesia
Fahad Makhdoum, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Assistant Professor, Cardiac Surgery
Yasser F ElGhoneimy, MD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Professor, Cardiac Surgery
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Imam Abdulrahamn Bin Faisal University (Former, Dammam University)
Dammam, Eastern, Saudi Arabia,, Saudi Arabia
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Saudi Arabia
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Gong W, Cai J, Wang Z, Chen A, Ye X, Li H, Zhao Q. Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis. 2016 Mar;8(3):459-68. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.02.67.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lin TH, Wang CW, Shen CH, Chang KH, Lai CH, Liu TJ, Chen KJ, Chen YW, Lee WL, Su CS. Clinical outcomes of multivessel coronary artery disease patients revascularized by robot-assisted vs conventional standard coronary artery bypass graft surgeries in real-world practice. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Jan 22;100(3):e23830. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023830.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Giambruno V, Chu MW, Fox S, Swinamer SA, Rayman R, Markova Z, Barnfield R, Cooper M, Boyd DW, Menkis A, Kiaii B. Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: an 18-year single-centre experience. Int J Med Robot. 2018 Jun;14(3):e1891. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1891. Epub 2018 Jan 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Marin-Cuartas M, Sa MP, Torregrossa G, Davierwala PM. Minimally invasive coronary artery surgery: Robotic and nonrobotic minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass techniques. JTCVS Tech. 2021 Oct 13;10:170-177. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.10.008. eCollection 2021 Dec. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kofler M, Stastny L, Reinstadler SJ, Dumfarth J, Kilo J, Friedrich G, Schachner T, Grimm M, Bonatti J, Bonaros N. Robotic Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Direct Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcome. Innovations (Phila). 2017 Jul/Aug;12(4):239-246. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000393.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Babliak O, Demianenko V, Melnyk Y, Revenko K, Babliak D, Stohov O, Pidgayna L. Multivessel Arterial Revascularization via Left Anterior Thoracotomy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Winter;32(4):655-662. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.02.032. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sellin C, Asch S, Belmenai A, Mourad F, Voss M, Dorge H. Early Results of Total Coronary Revascularization via Left Anterior Thoracotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Sep;71(6):448-454. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758149. Epub 2022 Nov 11.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Babliak O, Demianenko V, Melnyk Y, Revenko K, Pidgayna L, Stohov O. Complete Coronary Revascularization via Left Anterior Thoracotomy. Innovations (Phila). 2019 Aug;14(4):330-341. doi: 10.1177/1556984519849126. Epub 2019 May 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Caynak B, Sicim H. Routine minimally invasive approach via left anterior mini-thoracotomy in multivessel coronary revascularization. J Card Surg. 2022 Apr;37(4):769-776. doi: 10.1111/jocs.16259. Epub 2022 Jan 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Marin Cuartas M, Javadikasgari H, Pfannmueller B, Seeburger J, Gillinov AM, Suri RM, Borger MA. Mitral valve repair: Robotic and other minimally invasive approaches. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Nov-Dec;60(3):394-404. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2017.11.002. Epub 2017 Nov 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Smilowitz NR, Gupta N, Ramakrishna H, Guo Y, Berger JS, Bangalore S. Perioperative Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events Associated With Noncardiac Surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;2(2):181-187. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.4792.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Patrick WL, Iyengar A, Han JJ, Mays JC, Helmers M, Kelly JJ, Wang X, Ghoreishi M, Taylor BS, Atluri P, Desai ND, Williams ML. The learning curve of robotic coronary arterial bypass surgery: A report from the STS database. J Card Surg. 2021 Nov;36(11):4178-4186. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15945. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
IABF-16-05-25
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
TAV-in-SAV in Japanese Patients
NCT06826027
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
The Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy
NCT04489355
COMPLETED
General Anesthesia Versus Loco-Regional Anesthesia for Transcarotid Trancatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
NCT06870734
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Automated Fastener Device Versus Manually Tied Knot in MiAVR
NCT03664102
COMPLETED
TAVR With Echocardiography Guidance
NCT07035847
RECRUITING
NA
Treatment of Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation by Mitral Valve Clipping in Patients With Successful Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.
NCT04009434
UNKNOWN
NA
Swedish Study on STroke After TAVR
NCT04086836
COMPLETED
The Safety and Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Raplacemet in Intermediate Risk Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis
NCT03163329
UNKNOWN
PHASE2
Cardioprotective Effect of RIPC in Patients Undergoing TAVI
NCT02283398
WITHDRAWN
NA
Near INfrared Spectroscopy in Aortic valvE ReplacemenT
NCT01251328
COMPLETED
NA
Study of Transcatheter Tricuspid Annular Repair
NCT03692598
RECRUITING
NA
ACURATE IDE: Safety and Effectiveness Study of ACURATE Valve for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
NCT03735667
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
TRANscatheter or SurgIcal Aortic Valve ReplacemenT in All-Comers With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis
NCT02838199
WITHDRAWN
PHASE4
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left Ventricle in Patients With ADvanced Heart Failure (TAVR UNLOAD)
NCT02661451
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
ROTAO 1 - Feasibility and Safety of the TAVIPILOT Tele-operated Robot During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR/TAVI)
NCT07152574
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
MitraClip for Severe TR
NCT02863549
UNKNOWN
NA
Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement: Evaluation of Transcatheter Versus Surgery-Pilot Trial
NCT06817148
RECRUITING
NA
TAVR for Aortic Valve Disease
NCT05439863
RECRUITING
Autonomous Robotics for Transcatheter Cardiac Procedures
NCT04787757
COMPLETED
Tolerance of Myocardium to Ischemia Injury
NCT02812901
COMPLETED
NA
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Ascending Aortic Replacement
NCT07071857
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of TF-TAVR on Emotional Status, Quality of Life, Frailty and Inflammation
NCT03308435
TERMINATED
Randomized Trial of TAVI vs. SAVR in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low to Intermediate Risk of Mortality
NCT03112980
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Study of the No-touch Saphenous Vein Graft
NCT05757947
RECRUITING
NA