Usage Information
Abstract
Three-dimensional cardiac mapping is important for optimal visualization of the heart during cardiac ablation for the treatment of certain arrhythmias. However, many hospitals and clinics worldwide cannot afford the high cost of the current mapping systems. We set out to determine if, using predefined algorithms, comparable 3D cardiac maps could be created by a new device that relies on data generated from single-plane fluoroscopy and patient recording and monitoring systems, without the need for costly equipment, infrastructure changes, or specialized catheters. The study included phantom and animal experiments to compare the prototype test device, Navik 3D, with the existing CARTO 3 System. The primary endpoint directly compared: (a) the 3D distance between the Navik 3D–simulated ablation location and the back-projected ground truth location of the pacing and mapping catheter electrode, and (b) the same distance for CARTO. The study’s primary objective was considered met if the 95% confidence lower limit was greater than 0.75% for the Navik 3D–CARTO difference between the 2 distances, or less than or equal to 2 mm. Study results showed that the Navik 3D performance was equivalent to the CARTO system, and that accurate 3D cardiac maps can be created using data from equipment that already exists in all electrophysiology labs.
Authors
Jasbir Sra, David Krum, Indrajit Choudhuri, Barry Belanger, Mark Palma, Donald Brodnick, Daniel B. Rowe
Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 354 | 50 |
| 122 | 4 | |
| Figure | 755 | 2 |
| Table | 107 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 98 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,436 | 56 |
| Total Views | 1,492 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
