ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2020
First Expert Evaluation of a New Steerable Catheter in an Isolated Beating Heart.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Peripheral Vascular Intervention Technologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The CathPilot: Usability and Feasibility Evaluation in Simulated-Use Endovascular Interventions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- The evolution of technical prerequisites and local boundary conditions for optimization of mitral valve interventions-Emphasis on skills development and institutional risk performance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Characterization of Surgical Tools for Specific Endovascular Navigation.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Automated Suturing Technology for Bentall Procedures in a Passive Beating Heart Model.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn previous studies we developed two mechanical prototypes of steerable catheters: the Sigma, which uses joysticks to actuate two steerable tip segments, and the Epsilon, which has a handle that is an enlarged version of the tip. In this study, we present a first performance evaluation of the prototypes in the cardiac environment. The evaluation was carried out by an expert user, an electrophysiologist with over 20 years of experience, to obtain insight in clinically relevant factors.
methodsTwo experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, the Sigma was used in a passive beating heart setup connected to pumps with a saline solution and camera visualization, and compared with the expert's past experience with conventional steerable catheters. In the second experiment, the Sigma was used in an active beating heart setup with blood perfusion through the coronary arteries and echo visualization, and compared with the Epsilon prototype. The prototype was evaluated through questionnaires on task performance, catheter usability, and workload. After each of the experiments, the catheter characteristics were evaluated via a survey and followed by an in-depth interview. RESULTS &
conclusionsThe expert user found the passive beating heart setup to more successful than the active beating heart setup for the purpose of this experiment, with insightful visualization while the heart was in beating condition. The steerability of the prototypes was experienced as useful and clinically relevant. Based on the questionnaires and interview we were able to identify future design improvements and developments for the steerable catheter prototypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.