ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2025
Assessment of contact force variability in the MAGiC catheter under different magnetic field strengths, vector orientations, and catheter extensions in robotic magnetic navigation.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preclinical assessment of a novel ablation catheter specific to robotic magnetic navigation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Applications of robotic catheter ablation in congenital heart disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContact force (CF) in manually controlled catheters is crucial for forming an optimal lesion. There is lack of published data on CF values of MAGiC catheter (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA) in magnetic field.
methodsWe conducted a total of 2500 CF measurements using the Robotic Magnetic Navigation (RMN) system (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA), a magnetic-guided 8,5 Fr RF ablation catheter MAGiC (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA) inserted through a long sheath, and a precision jewelry scale (IKEME, Guangdong, CN). We analyzed the impact on the obtained CF values of five different magnetic field vectors (transverse, caudal, cranial, sagittal, and anterior), two field strengths (0.1 T and 0.08 T), and five catheter extension configurations from the long sheath. Additionally, we compared the CF values of the MAGiC catheter and the THERMOCOOL® RMT Catheter (Biosense Webster, Irvine, CA, USA) using two models.
resultsThe measured CF values of MAGiC catheter ranged from 5.62 to 21.61 g (0.1 T) and 3.63 to 20.74 g (0.08 T) and varied depending on the vectors. CF was higher at 0.1 T than 0.08 T, with values ranging from 9.32 to 21.61 g (0.1 T) and 8.71 to 20.74 g (0.08 T). In Model I comparison of MAGiC and THERMOCOOL® RMT, the MAGiC catheter had significantly higher CF (p < 0.001) in 28/30 measurements scenarios. In Model II, CF was higher in 24/30 scenarios (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe MAGiC catheter provides consistently optimal CF values across multiple orientations and catheter extension models, outperforming the THERMOCOOL® RMT Catheter in most scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40653535What 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.