The CathPilot: Performance Validation and Preclinical Safety and Feasibility Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Peripheral endovascular revascularization procedures often fail due to technical limitations of guidewire support, steering, and visualization. The novel CathPilot catheter aims to address these challenges. This study assesses the safety and feasibility of the CathPilot and compares its performance to conventional catheters for peripheral vascular interventions. METHODS: The study compared the CathPilot to non-steerable and steerable catheters. The success rates and access times for a relevant target inside a tortuous vessel phantom model were assessed. The reachable workspace within the vessel and the guidewire's force delivery capabilities were also evaluated. To validate the technology, chronic total occlusion tissue samples were used ex vivo to compare crossing success rates with conventional catheters. Finally, in vivo experiments in a porcine aorta were conducted to evaluate safety and feasibility. RESULTS: The success rates for reaching the set targets were 31%, 69%, and 100% with the non-steerable catheter, the steerable catheter, and the CathPilot, respectively. CathPilot had a significantly larger reachable workspace, and allowed for up to four times higher force delivery and pushability. In crossing of chronic total occlusion samples, the CathPilot achieved a success rate of 83% and 100%, for fresh and fixed lesions respectively, which was also significantly higher than conventional catheters. The device was fully functional in the in vivo study, and there were no signs of coagulation or damage to the vessel wall. CONCLUSION: This study shows the safety and feasibility of the CathPilot system and its potential to reduce failure and complication rates in peripheral vascular interventions. The novel catheter outperformed conventional catheters in all defined metrics. This technology can potentially improve the success rate and outcome of peripheral endovascular revascularization procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".