ArticleHeart rhythm O22022
An infant phantom for pediatric pericardial access and electrophysiology training.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digitally assisted learning in cardiac electrophysiology and cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Scientific Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
- A phantom for targeted endomyocardial biopsy training.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2023Article
- A novel videoscope and tool kit for percutaneous pericardial access under direct visualization.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Article
- Design and Functionality of a Multilumen Thoracic Access Port for Pericardial Access Under Direct Visualization.Journal of medical devices · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiac procedures in infants and children require a high level of skill and dexterity owing to small stature and anatomy. Lower incidence of procedure volume in this population results in fewer clinical opportunities for learning. Simulators have grown in popularity for education and training, though most existing simulators are often cost-prohibitive or model adult anatomy. Objective: Develop a low-cost simulator for practicing the skills to perform percutaneous pericardial access and cardiac ablation procedures in pediatric patients. Methods: We describe 2 simulators for practicing cardiac procedures in pediatric patients, with a total cost of less than $500. Both simulators are housed within an infant-size doll. The first simulator is composed of an infant-size heart and a skin-like covering to practice percutaneous pericardial access to the heart. Participants obtained sheath access to the heart under direct visualization. The second simulator houses a child-size heart with 7 touch-activated targets to practice manipulating a catheter through a small heart. This can be performed under direct visualization and with 3-dimensional mapping via CARTO. Participants manipulated a catheter to map the heart by touching the 6 positive targets, avoiding the negative target. Results: Physicians-in-training improved their time to complete the task between the first and second attempts. Physicians experienced with the tools took less time to complete the task than physicians-in-training. Conclusion: This inexpensive simulator is anatomically realistic and can be used to practice manipulating procedure tools and develop competency for pediatric cardiac procedures.
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.