Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Robotic Systems in Cardiovascular Interventions: Evolving Platforms and the Path Forward Cover

Robotic Systems in Cardiovascular Interventions: Evolving Platforms and the Path Forward

Open Access
|Oct 2025

References

  1. Mohammad AM. The interventionist mindset: The ten eyes rule in cath lab. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 Nov 28:60:6445. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.070
  2. Spitz AZ, Rothstein E. C-75 | Fatigue Impacts Operator Decision Making During Left-Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 May 1;4(5, Supplement):103065. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103065
  3. Stahl CM, Meisinger QC, Andre MP, Kinney TB, Newton IG. Radiation Risk to the Fluoroscopy Operator and Staff. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Oct;207(4):737-744. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16555
  4. Danek BA, Karatasakis A, Tajti P, et al. Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Coronary Perforation During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2017 Oct 15;120(8):1285-1292. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.010
  5. Prasad A, Compton PA, Prasad A, et al. Incidence and Treatment of Arterial Access Dissections Occurring during Cardiac Catheterization. J Interv Cardiol. 2008 Feb;21(1):61-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2007.00309.x
  6. Wan KR, Toy JA, Wolfe R, Danks A. Factors affecting the accuracy of ventricular catheter placement. J Clin Neurosci. 2011 Apr 1;18(4):485-488. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.06.018
  7. Goldstein JA, Balter S, Cowley M, Hodgson J, Klein LW. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004 Dec;63(4):407-11. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20201
  8. Reichman EF. Fluoroscopy-Induced Radiation Dermatitis. J Emerg Med. 2014 Nov 1;47(5):e117-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.06.054
  9. Rehani MM. Radiation-induced cataracts in staff engaged in interventional procedures. Phys Med. 2016 Sep 1;32:190. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.334
  10. Roguin A, Goldstein J, Bar O, Goldstein JA. Brain and Neck Tumors Among Physicians Performing Interventional Procedures. Am J Cardiol. 2013 May 1;111(9):1368-72. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.060
  11. Rear R, Bell RM, Hausenloy DJ. Contrast-induced nephropathy following angiography and cardiac interventions. Heart. 2016 Apr;102(8):638-48. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306962
  12. Duan W, Akinyemi T, Du W, et al. Technical and Clinical Progress on Robot-Assisted Endovascular Interventions: A Review. Micromachines (Basel). 2023 Jan 12;14(1):197. doi: 10.3390/mi14010197
  13. Belikov NV, Khaydukova IV, Poludkin IE, Borde AS. Evolution and current state of robotic catheters for endovascular surgery: A comprehensive review. Eng Sci Technol Int J. 2024 Sep 1;57:101789. doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101789
  14. Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Apr 16;61(15):1596-600. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.045
  15. Walters D, Reeves RR, Patel M, Naghi J, Ang L, Mahmud E. Complex robotic compared to manual coronary interventions: 6- and 12-month outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Mar 1;93(4):613-761. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27867
  16. Mahmud E, Dominguez A, Bahadorani J. First-in-human robotic percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct;88(4):565-70. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26550
  17. Mahmud E, Schmid F, Kalmar P, et al. Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Results of the RAPID Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct 10;9(19):2058-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.002
  18. Harrison J, Ang L, Naghi J, et al. Robotically-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: Reasons for partial manual assistance or manual conversion. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jul 1;19(5, Part A):526-31. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2017.11.003
  19. Kagiyama K, Mitsutake Y, Ueno T, et al. Successful introduction of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention system into Japanese clinical practice: a first-year survey at single center. Heart Vessels. 2021 Jul;36(7):955-64. doi: 10.1007/s00380-021-01782-6
  20. Koeda Y, Ishida M, Sasaki K, et al. Periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention used in the intravascular imaging guidance. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2023 Jan;38(1):39-48. doi: 10.1007/s12928-022-00864-0
  21. Swaminathan RV, Rao SV. Robotic-assisted transradial diagnostic coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jul;92(1):54-7. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27480
  22. Abbas R, Al Saiegh F, El Naamani K, et al. Robot-assisted carotid artery stenting: outcomes, safety, and operational learning curve. Neurosurg Focus. 2022 Jan;52(1):E17. doi: 10.3171/2021.10.FOCUS21504
  23. Pereira VM, Rice H, Villiers LD, et al. Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of the CorPath GRX robotic system in endovascular embolization procedures of cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg. 2024 Apr 1;16(4):405-11. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020161
  24. Patel TM, Shah SC, Pancholy SB. Long Distance Tele-Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of First-in-Human Experience. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Sep 1;14:53-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.017
  25. Al Nooryani A, Aboushokka W. Rotate-on-Retract Procedural Automation for Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: First Clinical Experience. Case Rep Cardiol. 2018 Dec 20;2018:6086034. doi: 10.1155/2018/6086034
  26. Reuters [Internet]. London, UK: Thomson Reuters; c2025. Hübner A, Dabrowski B. Siemens Healthineers Q2 profit falls, quits heart surgery robots business; 2023 May 10 [cited 2025 Jun 7]; Available from: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/siemens-healthineers-q2-profit-falls-covid-test-sales-shrink-2023-05-10/
  27. Baltrūnas T, Labunskas V, Dambrauskas V, Kalvaitis E, Bajoras V. Smart and Sensing Endovascular Robot Sentante. J. Vasc. Surg. 2022 Apr 1;75(4):16S. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.01.059
  28. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Baltrunas T, Kalvaitis E, Satkauskas E, Dambrauskas V, Labunskas V. System and method; 2023 Mar 2 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230067021A1/en
  29. Sentante [Internet]. Kaunas, Lithuania; Sentante; c2025. First Use of the Sentante Endovascular Robotic System in Human Patients; 2024 Jul 31 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://sentante.com/first-use-of-the-sentante-endovascular-robotic-system-in-human-patients/
  30. Choi J, Park S, Kim YH, Moon Y, Choi J. A Vascular Intervention Assist Device Using Bi-Motional Roller Cartridge Structure and Clinical Evaluation. Biosensors (Basel). 2021 Sep 10;11(9):329. doi: 10.3390/bios11090329
  31. Moon Y, Hu Z, Won J, et al. Novel Design of Master Manipulator for Robotic Catheter System. Int J Control Autom Syst. 2018 Dec 1;16(6):2924-34. doi: 10.1007/s12555-018-0089-7
  32. Danieli G, Greco PF, Larocca G, et al. Development of Disposables and Accessories for ROSES and Their In Vitro Experimentation. Appl Mech. 2022 Sep;3(3):956-73. doi: 10.3390/applmech3030054
  33. European Society of Medicine [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: European Society of Medicine; c2025. Danieli G, Tinelli G, Rosa SD, et al. Presenting a New Version of the RObotic System for Angioplasty; 2023 Jun 26 [cited 2025 Jul 30]. Available from: https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3951
  34. Indolfi C, Polimeni A, De Rosa S, Danieli G. First-in-human robotic percutaneous coronary intervention by the ROSES robotic system: a case report. Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2023 Oct 13;7(10):ytad506. doi: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytad506
  35. Lu WS, Xu WY, Zhang J, et al. Application study of medical robots in vascular intervention. Int J Med Robot. 2011 Sep;7(3):361-6. doi: 10.1002/rcs.406
  36. Lu WS, Xu WY, Pan F, Liu D, Tian ZM, Zeng Y. Clinical application of a vascular interventional robot in cerebral angiography. Int J Med Robot. 2016 Mar;12(1):132-6. doi: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytad506
  37. Lu WS, Xu W, Tian Z, et al. Experimental study of remote angiography using vascular interventional robot. In: 2013 ICME International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering; 2013 May. doi: 10.1109/ICCME.2013.6548274
  38. Morag E, Cornelis FH, Weisz G, Gandhi R. Overcoming Barriers and Advancements in Endovascular Robotics: A Review of Systems and Developments. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023 Sep 1;26(3):100918. doi: 10.1016/j.tvir.2023.100918
  39. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Sharon S, Boader I, Shoham M, Cohen E, Morag E. Device for automatically inserting and manipulating a medical tool into and within a bodily lumen; 2022 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220071723A1/en
  40. Cornelis F, Gandhi R, Rabkin D, Diaz-Cartelle J. Abstract No. LBA15 Remote-Controlled Endovascular Navigation with a Miniature, Single-Use, Robotic System. Results of the ACCESS-PVI Trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2025 Mar 1;36(3):S235-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2025.01.023
  41. Wang K, Lu Q, Chen B, et al. Endovascular intervention robot with multi-manipulators for surgical procedures: Dexterity, adaptability, and practicability. Robot Comput Integr Manuf. 2019 Apr 1;56:75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.09.004
  42. Song C, Xia S, Zhang L, et al. A novel endovascular robotic-assisted system for endovascular aortic repair: first-in-human evaluation of practicability and safety. Eur Radiol. 2023 Nov;33(11):7408-18. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09810-x
  43. Robocath [Internet]. Roubzix. France: Robocath; c2025. Pioneer the next chapter of interventional vascular medicine; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://www.robocath.com
  44. Durand E, Sabatier R, Smits PC, Verheye S, Pereira B, Fajadet J. Evaluation of the R-One robotic system for percutaneous coronary intervention: the R-EVOLUTION study. EuroIntervention. 2023 Apr 3;18(16):e1339-47. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00642
  45. Bao X, Guo S, Xiao N, Li Y, Yang C, Jiang Y. A cooperation of catheters and guidewires-based novel remote-controlled vascular interventional robot. Biomed Microdevices. 2018 Feb 19;20(1):20. doi: 10.1007/s10544-018-0261-0
  46. Bao X, Guo S, Yang C, Zheng L. Haptic Interface With Force and Torque Feedback for Robot-Assisted Endovascular Catheterization. IEEEASME Trans Mechatron. 2024 Apr;29(2):1111-25. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2023.3290492
  47. Liu K, Jiang Y, Li Y. Animal Experiment of a Novel Neurointerventional Surgical Robotic System with Master-Slave Mode. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2021 Jan 28;2021:8836268. doi: 10.1155/2021/8836268
  48. Bao X, Guo S, Xiao N, et al. Operation evaluation in-human of a novel remote-controlled vascular interventional robot. Biomed Microdevices. 2018 Jun 1;20(2):34. doi: 10.1007/s10544-018-0277-5
  49. Schmidt B, Schulte-Hahn B, Nowak B, Windhorst V, Windhorst V, Julian Chun KR. Role of Remote Navigation Systems in AF Ablation. J Atr Fibrillation. 2011 Feb 22;3(5):298. doi: 10.4022/jafib.298
  50. Arujuna A, Karim R, Zarinabad N, Gill J, et al. A randomized prospective mechanistic cardiac magnetic resonance study correlating catheter stability, late gadolinium enhancement and 3 year clinical outcomes in robotically assisted vs. standard catheter ablation. Europace. 2015 Aug;17(8):1241-50. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu364
  51. Dello Russo A, Fassini G, Conti S, et al. Analysis of catheter contact force during atrial fibrillation ablation using the robotic navigation system: results from a randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016 Aug;46(2):97-103. doi: 10.1007/s10840-016-0102-0
  52. Luther V, Jamil-Copley S, Koa-Wing M, et al. Non-randomised comparison of acute and long-term outcomes of robotic versus manual ventricular tachycardia ablation in a single centre ischemic cohort. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015 Aug;43(2):175-85. doi: 10.1007/s10840-016-0102-0
  53. Perera AH, Riga CV, Monzon L, Gibbs RG, Bicknell CD, Hamady M. Robotic Arch Catheter Placement Reduces Cerebral Embolization During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017 Mar 1;53(3):362-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.10.017
  54. Wolujewicz M. Robotic-Assisted Endovascular Pulmonary Artery Foreign Body Retrieval: A Case Report. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2016 Apr 1;50(3):168-70. doi: 10.1177/1538574416637446
  55. Lu T, Owji S, Chinnadurai P, et al. Robotic-Assisted Coil Embolization of Ascending Aortic Pseudoaneurysm. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Nov;102(5):e451-3. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.085
  56. Aziz A, Ham S. Coil Embolization of a Renal Aneurysm Using a Minimally Invasive Endovascular Robotic System. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2018 Apr;52(3):207-11. doi: 10.1177/1538574417748280
  57. DI Cardiology [Internet]. Park Ridge, NJ: Wainscot Media; c2025. Auris Surgical Robotics Agrees to Acquire Hansen Medical; 2016 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: http://www.dicardiology.com/content/auris-surgical-robotics-agrees-acquire-hansen-medical
  58. Shaikh ZA, Eilenberg MF, Cohen TJ. The AmigoTM Remote Catheter System: From Concept to Bedside. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2017 Aug;8(8):2795-802. doi: 10.19102/icrm.2017.080806
  59. Scarà A, Sciarra L, De Ruvo E, et al. Safety and feasibility of atrial fibrillation ablation using Amigo® system versus manual approach: A pilot study. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2018;18(2):61-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ipej.2017.10.001
  60. Datino T, Arenal A, Ruiz-Hernández PM, et al. Arrhythmia ablation using the Amigo Robotic Remote Catheter System versus manual ablation: One year follow-up results. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 1;202:877-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.049
  61. Hoffmayer KS, Krainski F, Shah S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of Amigo® robotically controlled versus manually controlled ablation of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus using a contact force ablation catheter. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Mar;51(2):125-32. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0319-1
  62. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Wallace DT, Schuh T, Tanner N, Nixon T, Hayes E, Gregg P. Robotic delivery system for cardiac implants; 2024 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240341872A1/en
  63. PR Newswire [Internet]. Chicago: IL: PR Newswire; c2025. Capstan Medical Achieves Milestone: World’s First Robotic Catheter Mitral Valve Replacements Successfully Completed; 2025 Mar 6 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/capstan-medical-achieves-milestone-worlds-first-robotic-catheter-mitral-valve-replacements-successfully-completed-302393977.html
  64. Clinical Trials [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: US National Library of Medicine; c2025. Capstan Med ical TMVR STudy: FIH; 2025 Apr 4 [cited 2025 Jul 31]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06600191
  65. Chen X, Su M, Chen X, Wang B, Taramasso M, Wang Y. First-in-human robotic-assisted transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge repair for treatment of severe mitral regurgitation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024 Dec 1;40(12):2641-4. doi: 10.1007/s10554-024-03227-3
  66. Zhu D, Chen X, Su M, et al. First-in-Man Study of Robotic-Assisted Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Apr 14;18(7):953-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2025.01.437
  67. Moray Medical [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Moray Medical; c2025. Moray Medical - A new form of catheter control; 2025 [cited 2025 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.moraymedical.com
  68. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Barrish MD, Bourang H, Laby P. Fluid-expandable body articulation of catheters and other flexible structures; 2016 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016160
  69. XCath [Internet]. Houston, TX: XCath; c2025. XCath - A new level of precision in endovascular navigation; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://www.xcath.com
  70. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Kim DH, Shin DS, Jang T, et al. Steerable surgical robotic system; 2021 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11076924B2/zh
  71. NeuroNews International [Internet]. Chicago, IL: NeuroNews International; c2025. Bell J. XCath successfully performs first public telerobotic mechanical thrombectomy demonstration; 2024 May 21 [cited 2025 Aug 4]. Available from: https://neuronewsinternational.com/xcath-successfully-performs-first-public-telerobotic-mechanical-thrombectomy-demonstration/
  72. Ernst S. Magnetic Navigation: Description of Technique, Advantages, and Technical Issues. In: Auricchio A, Singh J, Rademakers FE, editors. Cardiac Imaging in Electrophysiology. London: Springer; 2012. p. 299-303.
  73. Hwang J, Kim J young, Choi H. A review of magnetic actuation systems and magnetically actuated guidewire- and catheter-based microrobots for vascular interventions. Intel Serv Robotics. 2020 Jan 1;13(1):1-14. doi: 10.1007/s11370-020-00311-0
  74. Howard MA 3rd, Dacey RG, Henegar MM, Grady MS, Ritter RC, Gillies GT. Review of magnetic neurosurgery research. J Image Guid Surg. 1995;1(6):295-9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-712X(1995)1:6<;295::AID-IGS1>3.0.CO;2-5
  75. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Kidd BL, Kastelein N. Remote Manipulator Device; 2011 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110130718A1/en
  76. Nölker G, Schwagten B, Deville JB, et al. Vdrive Evaluation of Remote Steering and Testing in Lasso Electrophysiology Procedures Study: The VERSATILE Study in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Mar;27 Suppl 1:S17-22. doi: 10.1111/jce.12916
  77. Noten AME, Ramdat Misier NL, Kammeraad JAE, et al. The First Evaluation of Remote Magnetic Navigation-Guided Pediatric Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation. Pediatr Cardiol. 2022 Dec;43(8):1695-703. doi: 10.1007/s00246-022-02900-5
  78. Roy K, Gomez-Pulido F, Ernst S. Remote Magnetic Navigation for Catheter Ablation in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: A Review. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Mar;27Suppl 1:S45-56. doi: 10.1111/jce.12903
  79. Luo Q, Xie Y, Wu L, Jin Q. Robotic magnetic navigation-guided pulmonary vein isolation in an atrial fibrillation patient with dextrocardia situs inversus: techniques and potential advantages. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023 May 20;23(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03308-6
  80. Bassil G, Liu CF, Markowitz SM, et al. Comparison of robotic magnetic navigation-guided and manual catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias arising from the papillary muscles. Europace. 2018 May 1;20(suppl_2):ii5-10. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux374
  81. Google Patents [Internet]. Mountain View, CA: Google; c2025. Shachar Y. Apparatus and method for shaped magnetic field control for catheter, guidance, control, and imaging; 2011 [cited 2025 Aug 4]. Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120143127A1/en
  82. Magnetecs [Internet]. Inglewood, CA: Magnetecs Corporation; c2010-2015. Home page; 2025 [cited 2025 Aug 4]. Available from: https://www.magnetecs.com/media.php
  83. Gang ES, Nguyen BL, Shachar Y, et al. Dynamically shaped magnetic fields: initial animal validation of a new remote electrophysiology catheter guidance and control system. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011 Oct;4(5):770-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.110.959692
  84. Heunis CM, Silva B, Sereni G, et al. The Flux One Magnetic Navigation System: A Preliminary Assessment for Stent Implantation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2023 Sep;8(9):5640-7. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2023.3289108
  85. Chautems C, Nelson BJ. The tethered magnet: Force and 5-DOF pose control for cardiac ablation. Presented at: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2017. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989562
  86. Nanoflex [Internet]. Opfikon, Switzerland: Nanoflex Robotics AG; c2025. Home page; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 7]. Available from: https://nanoflexrobotics.com/
  87. Hooshiar A, Najarian S, Dargahi J. Haptic Telerobotic Cardiovascular Intervention: A Review of Approaches, Methods, and Future Perspectives. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2020;13:32-50. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2019.2907458
  88. Alekseeva NM, Viller AG, Romanov AM. The Design of Endovascular Robots for Cardiac Interventions: A Survey. J Field Robot. 2024 Dec 5;42(5):1914-1962. doi: 10.1002/rob.22480
  89. Rafii-Tari H, Payne CJ, Yang GZ. Current and emerging robot-assisted endovascular catheterization technologies: a review. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014 Apr 1;42(4):697-715. doi: 10.1007/s10439-013-0946-8
  90. Kilbride BF, Narsinh KH, Jordan CD, et al. MRI-guided endovascular intervention: current methods and future potential. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2022 Oct;19(10):763-78. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2022.2141110
  91. Abdelaziz MEMK, Tian L, Hamady M, Yang GZ, Temelkuran B. X-ray to MR: the progress of flexible instruments for endovascular navigation. Prog Biomed Eng. 2021 Aug;3(3):032004. doi: 10.1088/2516-1091/ac12d6
  92. Tavallaei MA, Thakur Y, Haider S, Drangova M. A magnetic-resonance-imaging-compatible remote catheter navigation system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Apr;60(4):899-905. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2229709
  93. Langsch F, Virga S, Esteban J, Göbl R, Navab N. Robotic Ultrasound for Catheter Navigation in Endovascular Procedures. Presented at: 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2019. doi: 10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967652
  94. Hügl B, Findeisen Z. The Use of Innovative Technologies to Guide Cardiac Procedures. US Cardiol Rev. 2012;9(2):81-5. doi: 10.15420/usc.2012.9.2.81
  95. Hügl B, Findeisen Z. Integration of trans-esophageal echocardiography with magnetic tracking technology for cardiac interventions. Presented at: Proceedings, SPIE Medical Imaging; 2010 Feb 27. San Diego, CA. doi: 10.1117/12.844273
  96. Shi C, Luo X, Guo J, Najdovski Z, Fukuda T, Ren H. Three-Dimensional Intravascular Reconstruction Techniques Based on Intravascular Ultrasound: A Technical Review. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2018 May;22(3):806-17. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2017.2703903
  97. Kuwahara T. Intracardiac Echocardiography in Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: It Is Better to See What You Are Doing? J Atr Fibrillation. 2015 Apr 30;7(6):1215. doi: 10.4022/jafib.1215
  98. Zhang X, Gosnell J, Nainamalai V, et al. Advances in TEE-Centric Intraprocedural Multimodal Image Guidance for Congenital and Structural Heart Disease. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Sep 18;13(18):2981. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13182981
  99. Roshanfar M, Salimi M, Jang SJ, Sinusas A, Kim J, Mosadegh B. Emerging Image-Guided Navigation Techniques for Cardiovascular Interventions: A Scoping Review. Bioeng. 2025 May 2;12(5):488. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12050488
  100. Fekri P, Zadeh M, Dargahi J. H-Net: A Multitask Architecture for Simultaneous 3D Force Estimation and Stereo Semantic Segmentation in Intracardiac Catheters. IEEE Robot Auto Letters. 2024 Jan;10(1):1-8. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2024.3514513
  101. Kanagaratnam P, Koa-Wing M, Wallace DT, Goldenberg AS, Peters NS, Davies DW. Experience of robotic catheter ablation in humans using a novel remotely steerable catheter sheath. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2008 Jan;21(1):19-26. doi: 10.1007/s10840-007-9184-z
  102. Patel RV, Atashzar SF, Tavakoli M. Haptic Feedback and Force-Based Teleoperation in Surgical Robotics. Proc IEEE. 2022 Jul;110(7):1012-27. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2022.3180052
  103. Rafii-Tari H, Payne CJ, Bicknell C, et al. Objective Assessment of Endovascular Navigation Skills with Force Sensing. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017 May 1;45(5):1315-27. doi: 10.1007/s10439-017-1791-y
  104. Zhao D, Liu D. Clinical training technology for vascular interventional surgery robot system based on master-slave expansion. Presented at: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automaton. 2012 Aug 5-8. Chengdu, China. doi: 10.1109/ICMA.2012.6283176
  105. Rafii-Tari H, Payne CJ, Riga C, Bicknell C, Lee SL, Yang GZ. Assessment of Navigation Cues with Proximal Force Sensing during Endovascular Catheterization. In: Ayache N, Delingette H, Golland P, Mori K, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2012. Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature; 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33418-4
  106. Al-Ahmad O, Ourak M, Vlekken J, Lindner E, Vander Poorten E. Three-dimensional catheter tip force sensing using multi-core fiber Bragg gratings. Front Robot AI. 2023 Mar 9;10:1154494. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2023.1154494
  107. Hasanzadeh S, Janabi-Sharifi F. Model-Based Force Estimation for Intracardiac Catheters. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron. 2016 Feb;21(1):154-162. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2015.2453122
  108. Khoshnam M, Skanes AC, Patel RV. Modeling and estimation of tip contact force for steerable ablation catheters, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015 May;62(5):1404-1415. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2389615
  109. Mazidi A, Ramos AC, Sayadi A, Dargahi J, Barralet J, Feldman LS. Nonlinear Impedance Matching Approach (NIMA) for Robust Haptic Rendering During Robotic Laparoscopy Surgery. Presented at: 2024 10th IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. 2024 Sep 1-4. Heidelberg, Germany. doi: 10.1109/BioRob60516.2024.10719806
  110. Díaz I, Gil JJ, Hulin T. Stability boundary and transparency for haptic rendering. In:Zadeh MH, editor. Advances in Haptics. London, UK: Intechopen; 2010 Apr 1. p. 103-125.
  111. Sajja KC, Sweid A, Al Saiegh F, et al. Endovascular robotic: feasibility and proof of principle for diagnostic cerebral angiography and carotid artery stenting. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Apr;12(4):345-9. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015763
  112. Najafi G, Kreiser K, Abdelaziz MEMK, Hamady MS. Current State of Robotics in Interventional Radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 May;46(5):549-61. doi: 10.1007/s00270-023-03421-1
  113. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Engel G, Kong MH, Patrawala RA. Physician-controlled costs: the choice of equipment used for atrial fibrillation ablation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013 Mar 1;36(2):157-65. doi: 10.1007/s10840-013-9782-x
  114. Moschovaki-Zeiger O, Arkoudis NA, Spiliopoulos S. Safety and feasibility study of a novel robotic system in an in vivo porcine vascular model. CVIR Endovascular. 2024 Jan 27;7(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s42155-024-00425-x
  115. Fusco MR, Chitale R. Neuroendovascular robotics: wave of the future or failed promise? J Neurointerv Surg. 2024 Feb 12;16(3):219-220. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-021555
  116. Rabinovich EP, Capek S, Kumar JS, Park MS. Tele-robotics and artificial-intelligence in stroke care. J Clin Neurosci. 2020 Sep:79:129-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.04.125
  117. Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Parker J, et al. Robotic telestenting performance in transcontinental and regional pre-clinical models. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb 15;97(3):E327-32. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29115
  118. Madder RD, VanOosterhout S, Mulder A, et al. Network latency and long-distance robotic telestenting: Exploring the potential impact of network delays on telestenting performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 1;95(5):914-919. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28425
  119. Ramadani A, Bui M, Wendler T, Schunkert H, Ewert P, Navab N. A survey of catheter tracking concepts and methodologies. Med Image Anal. 2022 Nov:82:102584. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2022.102584
  120. Kagadis GC, Katsanos K, Karnabatidis D, Loudos G, Nikiforidis GC, Hendee WR. Emerging technologies for image guidance and device navigation in interventional radiology. Med Phys. 2012 Sep;39(9):5768-81. doi: 10.1118/1.4747343
  121. Zhou JJ, Quadri A, Sewani A, et al. The CathPilot: A Novel Approach for Accurate Interventional Device Steering and Tracking. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron. 2022 Dec;27(6):5812-23. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2022.3188955
  122. Magellan Biomedical [Internet]. Richmond Hill, ON, Canada: Magellan Biomedical. Home page; 2025 [cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available from: https://magellanbiomedical.com/technology2/
  123. Robertshaw H, Karstensen L, Jackson B, et al. Artificial intelligence in the autonomous navigation of endovascular interventions: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 Aug 3;17:1239374. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1239374/full
  124. Karstensen L, Ritter J, Hatzl J, et al. Learning-based autonomous vascular guidewire navigation without human demonstration in the venous system of a porcine liver. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2022 Nov;17(11):2033-2040. doi: 10.1007/s11548-022-02646-8
  125. Beaman CB, Kaneko N, Meyers PM, Tateshima S. A Review of Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 May;42(5):808-814. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6976
  126. Roshanfar M, Salimi M, Kaboodrangi A, et al. Advanced Robotics for the Next-Generation of Cardiac Interventions. Micromachines (Basel), 2025 Mar 22;16(4):363. doi: 10.3390/mi16040363
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcvj.1652 | Journal eISSN: 1947-6108
Language: English
Page range: 16 - 34
Submitted on: Jun 11, 2025
Accepted on: Jul 18, 2025
Published on: Oct 7, 2025
Published by: Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2025 Srikanth Reddy Mandhumula, M. Ali Tavallaei, published by Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.