ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Preclinical assessment of a novel ablation catheter specific to robotic magnetic navigation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A novel catheter (Magbot) is needed to enable seamless integration with robotic magnetic navigation systems and third-party mapping platforms. Objective: The goals of this study were to assess the contact force (CF) and lesion characteristics of the Magbot catheter under robotic magnetic navigation guidance and to compare these parameters with those of the RMT catheter solely for the CARTO system. Methods: A total of 1200 CF measurements were collected for both the Magbot and RMT catheters when spanning different vector orientations, and catheter extensions were obtained in a simulation study. Subsequently, radiofrequency energy was delivered to an ex vivo porcine heart to create ablation lesions using 3 power settings: 30 W for 30 seconds, 40 W for 20 seconds, and 50 W for 15 seconds. Results: CF values were highly dependent on both vector orientation and catheter extension. The Magbot catheter consistently yielded more favorable CF values across all anatomical configurations than did the RMT catheter. While no statistically significant difference in lesion size was observed between the 2 catheters across all tested energy settings, a consistent trend favoring the Magbot catheter was noted. Moreover, high-power ablation (50 W/15 seconds) generated lesions characterized by a significant increase in superficial width but a concomitant reduction in depth and overall volume. Notably, compared with the Magbot catheter, the RMT catheter was associated with a significantly higher incidence of steam pops, with risk escalating sharply at higher power levels. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the Magbot catheter not only matched the RMT catheter in core lesion formation efficacy but also offered distinct advantages in terms of CF stability and safety profile.
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.