Audiovisual distraction with virtual reality goggles for chronic total occlusion procedures: the ReViCTO trial
Background and objectives: Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion (CTO PCI) is a prolonged and technically demanding procedure often associated with patient anxiety and discomfort. We evaluated whether intraoperative audiovisual distraction via virtual reality (VR) goggles re...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | INCLIVA |
| Repositorio: | r-INCLIVA. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica de INCLIVA |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:incliva_____::9a892878e76bfd657cfb31e1dfe0c383 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://incliva.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/20918 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Virtual reality Percutaneous coronary intervention Chronic total occlusion Anxiety Pain |
| Sumario: | Background and objectives: Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion (CTO PCI) is a prolonged and technically demanding procedure often associated with patient anxiety and discomfort. We evaluated whether intraoperative audiovisual distraction via virtual reality (VR) goggles reduces procedural anxiety vs usual care. Methods: The ReViCTO trial was a prospective, single-center, randomized, open-label study enrolling 59 patients undergoing elective CTO PCI. Participants were randomized to receive intraoperative audiovisual distraction via VR goggles (n = 31) or usual care (n = 28). The primary endpoint was maximum patient-reported procedural anxiety assessed immediately after theprocedure using a visual analogue scale (VAS; range, 0-10). Secondary endpoints included procedural pain, intraoperative sedative/analgesic requirements, and patient satisfaction. Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of maximum procedural anxiety between the VR and control groups (mean VAS, 3.23 +/- 2.78 vs 3.75 +/- 2.77; mean difference, -0.52; P = .472). Similarly, no significant differences were observed regarding maximum procedural pain (P = .964) or the use and dosage of intraoperative morphine or midazolam. The intervention was safe, and 80.6% of patients in the VR group reported willingness to use the device during a future procedure. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing elective CTO PCI, the use of immersive VR was feasible and well-tolerated but did not significantly reduce patient-reported peak anxiety, pain, or intraoperative pharmacologic requirements vs contemporary usual care. |
|---|