CARTO for AWS

My main use case for CARTO is to perform CARTO calibration. I help cardiologists diagnose arrhythmias by creating good pictures and 3D anatomy to help them locate their position inside the heart. My main role is the technical part.

I still remember one case of atrial fibrillation for which I used CARTO. A patient had been in atrial fibrillation for more than one year. At the time, CARTO was useful for us, making a PVS ablation cloud, and the doctor achieved a good result for the patient. We performed a good PV ablation, and in the end, the patient was in sinus rhythm. After one year, the patient remained in sinus rhythm throughout, which was a positive outcome from the 3D mapping.

When I was working with the BW division, I noticed that CARTO's main feature is that during a normal 2D system, we have to perform procedures under radiation. However, in CARTO, for the doctor, patient, and other colleagues, there is very little requirement for radiation or no requirement for radiation at all. We get the best picture and best results in terms of 2D procedures. CARTO is more valuable than 2D in terms of getting great results in the least amount of time without radiation.

At the moment, the quality of 3D mapping is most valuable for me. The quality of 3D mapping is useful to diagnose inside the heart more precisely. The doctor and I know where to go into the heart and which part needs ablation. With 2D mapping, we have to rely more on 2D radiation and pictures without a 3D cloud. Therefore, 3D mapping is more important.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization by giving us a positive attitude, especially in ablation procedures called VT PVCs and AVNRT. With AVNRT, we are very close to the His bundle area. If we do it in 2D, there is a high chance we can damage the AV node. However, in 3D, there is no chance to damage the AV node because we can make the His bundle cloud. Therefore, CARTO is more important for that.

At the moment, CARTO is performing really well, but in certain points such as AF ablation, they can improve the ablation point for scar VT base to reduce the time. The technology is absolutely fine.

From a support point of view, the company can improve because at the moment, there are few technicians around the world who can assist the doctor in terms of the physiologist. They can provide more training and train more people to use CARTO, in terms of doctors and physiologists.

There is a need for improvement. No one is perfect. They are nearly perfect but not 100%. There are still some things they have to improve in terms of the catheter. If they work on the catheter, they can reduce the time of special VT ablation, scar VT, and AF ablation.

I have been using CARTO for more than two years since I was in India.

CARTO is stable in my experience.

CARTO handles more users smoothly. It is user-friendly and smooth. There is no workload issue.

CARTO customer support is fine. They have supported us a lot and there is no problem.

We were not using any other different solution. We switched from 2D to 3D because it was taking more radiation and more time.

I am not sure if I have seen a return on investment from using CARTO in terms of time, money, or resources saved for my team.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing seems to be easy and straightforward.

We know CARTO is the best, so that is why we chose CARTO.

For AI, I am not sure, but I think AI can work more accurately than some alternatives. However, at some point, I am uncertain. AI may help us.

CARTO is directly installed at the hospital in our organization.

I believe the company is doing well at the moment.

For others looking into using CARTO, if they want more accurate results, they should use CARTO. I would give CARTO a rating of 9 out of 10.

My main use case for CARTO is PVI. I use CARTO to make a map or a LAT map for focal tachycardias in the left atrium, and I am a pulmonary vein circumference in the left atrium and the roof.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization by being easy to use for nurses, better than NavX in the past, and it is also more tangible for the nurses. The evidence has significantly increased, the accuracy of CARTO is excellent, and the time savings depend on the procedure. With PFA, CARTO is better, and if you use the normal energy source, it takes a long time. However, the development of CARTO over the 20 years has been such that it makes the dots quickly. The conventional way 25 years ago was a horror.

The specific outcome that shows how CARTO has helped my team or hospital is that the number of patients has increased and has almost doubled.

The best features CARTO offers are PASO, Parallel Mapping, and the feature of propagation for the visualization of the Tachy. You see the way from the Tachy, which is very good.

Out of those features, I find myself using Propagation the most because you see the Tachy and the way from the Tachy on the atrium or the ventricle.

I would like to add that Pattern is a big future function from CARTO, and it is very nice.

CARTO cannot become better because CARTO is good. You cannot improve CARTO any further, as the current version is excellent. I started on the old XP more than 20 years ago, and for me, it is actually no longer improvable. It is simply really good the way it is.

One function is very difficult, which is switching from bipolar to LAT. If you have already set up the mapping in the LAT setup and only switch to LAT later, this so-called gap means all the presets are gone. That has always been the case and I personally do not like that.

I have been using CARTO for about 20 years.

In my experience, CARTO is stable and very reliable.

CARTO's scalability is very good, including for the eye, and that is important.

The customer support is provided at least once a month.

Before CARTO, we tried operating without PFA. The offer was too expensive. CARTO did not move and did not hurry, so we switched to Boston Scientific, which was a cheaper offer and simply more flexible. We now often also perform procedures with PFA from Biosense Webster, unfortunately.

I have not seen a return on investment with CARTO since it should not charge any more money if no support is provided. That does not work and is simply not acceptable. This is the case with St. Jude or Abbott as well, as with other companies. If the staff does the 3D themselves, the price has to be significantly lower. It is too high and it always has been.

Biosense Webster has always placed value on the fact that the staff they send once a week or once a month is refinanced through the purchase of catheters. That is not our problem. If they provide so much support, in my opinion, they have an extremely high density of support, then they must also finance that themselves, especially since I know some clinics where the staff has been operating the 3D themselves for years, and not any worse.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is CARTO's biggest problem. It is much too expensive, and that would have to change in the future. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for CARTO or Biosense Webster Johnson & Johnson in the coming years. Good products are now produced by everyone, and there are hardly any weaknesses left.

The healthcare system will not be able to finance this in the long term.

Before choosing CARTO, I did not evaluate other options.

Regarding CARTO's AI capabilities, it is hard to say. I actually do not need a computer to think because we can do all of that very well and we also have to be able to do it. If we leave that to an AI, we switch off the human element, and I do not think that is good in medicine. All the procedures we do actually also lead to a termination with tachycardias, whether they are SVTs or VTs. We do not need AI in the medical field with CARTO. We can and must do that ourselves. Otherwise, we do not need or should not operate the system and above all should not examine any patients.

I do not know the accuracy of CARTO and AI, and my CARTO version does not have AI in that sense. CARTO does what I want. I set it, I set the reference values, what it should see, what it should not see, what it should do and what it should not do, and it does exactly what I want because I use the system and define it exactly for it. In this way, I always reach the goal. My ablations are actually 100 percent successful. CARTO settings are for the ablation doctor, so to speak, and I do not need AI.

My advice to others looking into using CARTO is that more training courses for nurses would have to be offered again because medical training alone does not help in the German sector since the doctors do not operate it. This only happens in university hospitals or large hospitals. In smaller hospitals with approximately 500 to 800 patient beds, it is explicitly the nursing staff who does it. The focus has been on doctors for years, which does not work. The nursing staff would have to be much more integrated, trained, and further educated so that CARTO is simply operated because it is simple and easy for a nurse to use. CARTO would have to deviate from always only sending the doctors and also send the nurses.

I have given this review a rating of 10.

I use CARTO mainly to make interactive map views and also for data analysis with geospatial data.

For example, I scraped data from real estate websites here in Catalonia and then compiled all the square meters of the houses, the price of the houses, the comarca of the houses, the city, and whether they are for rent or for sale. I put all these data points in geographical coordinates over a Catalonia map, allowing users to filter by province, comarca, city, price, rent or buy status, and square meters, making it easy to see which offers and which real estate websites offer these houses in a particular territory in Catalonia.

Our best insight while building that real estate map in CARTO was that the price of renting and also buying houses, particularly the price per square meter, was increasing significantly in Barcelona city and also in Girona city. All the cities and villages that were maybe 30 kilometers away from Barcelona were increasing at the same level, while the other cities that are not near Barcelona, more to the north or on the west or east, the prices remained regular compared to previous years.

The most interesting finding regarding my main use case in CARTO was the data analysis capability. I initially thought CARTO was only for showing interactive maps, but when I worked with CARTO, I realized it could do much more. One of those things is great data analysis, as I have data in silos in Databricks and CARTO has a native connector with Databricks, allowing me to make SQL analysis in the CARTO workflows and show the data frames or modified data automatically from my Databricks silo, which was great.

The best features CARTO offers, based on what I mentioned, include data analysis, native connectors with Databricks and other data platforms, and the workflows feature where I can easily perform data analysis without the need for coding knowledge.

The native connector with Databricks is quite easy to understand in the user interface, and while I would love to create folders in the interface to make it easier to view the maps and workflows, it is generally acceptable.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization by making it easier to conduct data analysis for many use cases. For instance, in Catalonia, there is a virus transmitted by wild pigs, and CARTO made it easy to locate the first corpse of a wild pig infected by this virus by its geographical coordinates. I could then map a 30 kilometers radius around this corpse to see which wild pig farms or pig farms were nearby and may be affected, a use case I could not achieve with other platforms, but I could do it with CARTO very easily.

I saw time savings and efficiency gains from using CARTO, but while I know I saved a lot of time and became more efficient, I do not have specific metrics to share.

I find CARTO could be improved by allowing users to create folders and adding more tags or tag filters in the user interface.

Support and documentation were both great, and no improvements are needed apart from what I mentioned regarding the user interface.

I have been using CARTO for two and a half years, from 2023 to March 2026.

CARTO is stable in my experience.

CARTO's scalability is really good, particularly because the native connection with Databricks makes it easier to scale and work with different schemas and data layers such as bronze, silver, and gold.

The customer support for CARTO is really good; five individuals who worked with CARTO in Spain were able to communicate with support in Spanish, solving any problems we encountered.

Before CARTO, I worked with QGIS, but I did not perform the same tasks as I did with CARTO; I only used QGIS for grouping GeoJSON and CSV files.

I have seen a return on investment from using CARTO, primarily through time saving and efficiency gains, although I do not have relevant metrics to share about this.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing CARTO; I decided to work with CARTO since I had been using it since the first version, believing it would be great, especially due to the support.

My advice for others looking into using CARTO is that it is more than just an interactive map; the real potential of CARTO lies in geospatial data analysis.

Regarding CARTO's AI capabilities, I think the accuracy and reliability of output could be improved because I experienced latency, where simple queries took five or six minutes to process or sometimes the API became unresponsive.

CARTO is deployed in my organization using a Databricks private cloud. However, I do not have experience with CARTO's pricing, setup cost, and licensing because that is not my focus in the business.

I would rate this review 9 out of 10.

I have used CARTO for the last 12 years.

I use CARTO for three-dimensional mapping of complex arrhythmias, and I am the mapper, the one responsible for producing the mapping for the industry.

I set up CARTO in the operating room, wait for the patient to enter the room, connect the equipment to the patient, sit at the workstation helping the doctor with the production of the three-dimensional mapping, and after the procedure is finished, I disconnect the equipment from the patient, produce the mapping for the doctor to include in the report, and turn off the equipment and store this equipment in the equipment room.

I help the doctor in the production of the three-dimensional mapping with CARTO, and I keep telling the doctor if there is any part of the heart left to be mapped that has not yet been mapped and I point out to him where the arrhythmia seems to come from, so that the ablation can take place and the problem, the arrhythmia, is resolved.

I believe that the best offering of CARTO is in the stability of cardiac mapping, and I believe that CARTO has a great technology that adapts to all patients' arrhythmias.

Since I work for the industry, CARTO is a piece of equipment that helps in selling the consumable materials, so only through CARTO are we able to sell the catheters involved in mapping and ablation.

I believe that CARTO helps with the efficiency of the procedures and also with the decision of the ablation strategy in a more assertive way.

When we have a three-dimensional mapping with better quality, it is possible to see which group of cells is responsible for the arrhythmia, and making the most assertive decision for the patient's ablation becomes easier.

I believe that CARTO can be even better used according to the better performance of the mapper in the room.

CARTO is not connected to the data network, so it cannot suffer attacks relating to its security and the governance of its data.

CARTO today has few features that depend on artificial intelligence, and the features that are said to be artificial intelligence do not seem to me to be so, as there is still a lot to improve regarding the offering of artificial intelligence.

I have been working in my current field for 12 years.

CARTO is an excellent system and has great performance for electroanatomical mapping, and my advice is to choose an advanced mapper and you will be able to get the most out of the equipment. I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

My main use case for CARTO is typically for atrial fibrillation, radiofrequency ablations for atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia. Basically, all of those aside from the PFAs, of course.

What stands out to me most about CARTO is its versatility because nowadays we are performing more pulsed-field ablations, but those are limited to atrial fibrillation. If you have to do CTI lines or you have to do atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia on top of your atrial fibrillation, it is much better to use CARTO from the very beginning, especially if the patient has a redo ablation. Because if you are doing a redo ablation, you can actually find problems that may arise while you are ablating the patient. From my experience with our professors from Brompton and Harefield Hospital, for example, this professor who has been trained internationally would even consider ablation with absolute alcohol. To that extent, we can go to the Vein of Marshall, and if CARTO ablation fails with radiofrequency ablation, then we can consider absolute alcohol ablation with CARTO. You cannot do that with Cryo, nor with PFA as well, so that is what stands out for me.

CARTO's versatility helps me handle complex or redo ablations because I have more options in terms of conjunction with other catheters, especially for electrophysiology studies at the beginning. You can plan your ablations or radiofrequency ablations before the procedure, but when you are there, it is much easier and much faster to make or change the decision than the ones that you planned ahead of time. If something arises, for example, ventricular ectopics, and then a random arrhythmia develops, then I would rather have CARTO system on my side rather than another system.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization because I think sixty percent of our cardiology procedures are mostly ablations, and we work closely with different groups of doctors. Mainly, it is cardiology doctors who have been researching and have patients that have aberrant anatomies in terms of finding arrhythmias, for example, the anatomy of the heart being completely flipped or opposite. Their research is more based on CARTO ablation treatments rather than the newer ones or cryoablations. Evidence-based, CARTO ablations are much better at the moment and have more evidence-based backup in terms of treatment.

Regarding improvements for CARTO, I think the main pain points are because newer technologies, such as pulsed-field ablation, have taken over angiography departments and cath labs by storm since last year. There are many different PFA catheters that have had shorter duration for AF ablation treatment. I think it is feasible for CARTO representatives and CARTO managers to actually do case studies or presentations of case studies, not just to physiologists, but also for the healthcare professionals and alliance inside the labs. In reality, it is not just the doctor who decides what happens to that patient; sometimes they ask the team what should have been done better in the debriefing. If you educate nurses in terms of case studies or if you educate radiographers, not just the physiologists, then they would certainly suggest that if you use CARTO ablation, you will have these options and different types of treatments in conjunction with your CARTO ablations, which are not limited to just the cardioversion secondary to your PFA ablations. That is where it starts: education and training, sponsoring HCPs to actually know CARTO ablations more rather than just the PFA because at the end of the day, that still wins in my opinion. Again, it is the versatility of CARTO ablation system, so focus on that.

Regarding improvements needed with the catheter, I would say it is more of the tip of the catheter. Of course, your special metals that you use for the tip of your catheters can be recycled, but it is more of the whole body of the catheter for sustainability in the future. We collect our cables for CARTO ablations and then recycle them because there is a company who does that for us. The special metals we usually send as well to be recycled, but the whole body of your catheter is not really sustainable; it is per protocol. Hopefully, in the future, someone will create a material that can actually be recycled and not just be placed in the bin, adding pollution or waste management.

I chose eight out of ten for CARTO because it would make it a ten for me if the treatment duration can compete with the time duration of PFA. Our department's current business model earns more if the duration of procedures is shorter, allowing us to do more patients in a list. If we do CARTO ablation, we are limited to two to three patients in one doctor's list because we reserve their slot and they have their protected slot. However, with PFAs, you can do five to six patients in a list. The more patients you can do in a shorter time with an efficient treatment that is not far from the treatment of CARTO ablation at the very outcome of it, then it is much better.

Regarding CARTO's AI capabilities, I think education and training are vital for healthcare professionals in the labs. It is much better for us to hear updates directly from you about CARTO ablations. That way, we can relay our experiences in terms of the AI side.

I believe there are no other improvements needed for CARTO that we have not discussed yet, but if you mention AI and talk about the accuracy, would it not be better for people not to use AI entirely and rather make it just a tool than depend on AI. I know many software applications have been implemented and deployed recently with AI features, but to a certain extent, I see AI as a tool to improve work. At the end of the day, the representatives who help the doctor decide where to locate the arrhythmia and where to ablate are the ones that truly count and matter. If AI is just gathering information in general but not actually reflecting our experiences in the labs directly, that is where the concern lies.

I have been using CARTO since St George's day, which was 2019 to present.

My advice to others looking into using CARTO is to optimize treatments involved in CARTO ablations. Other doctors are still not as experienced as our professors in the labs, and I think there is more that can be done in conjunction with atrial fibrillation treatment. For instance, there is only one professor using alcohol ablation at the end of CARTO ablations when he is determined to actually ablate the patient. None of his patients actually fail ablating AFs because we have to be transparent at the end of the day. There are cases who have had ablations that were not successful at all, leading patients to pursue a different pathway, which is frustrating and disappointing to see them experience. I rated CARTO eight out of ten based on my experience and the considerations I have outlined.