CARTO Reviews

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.

CARTO is used for ablations, mapping, and EP studies. In the case of ablations, such as atrial fibrillations, VT ablations, PVC ablations, and SVTs, every case that requires mapping and then intervention utilizes this main component in my current facility.

For example, in an atrial fibrillation procedure, you gain access and need ICE guidance, which CARTO provides. The ICE catheter helps perform a quick map of the right atrium before going transseptal. When that map is complete, all the catheters provided are used, including ablation, the decanav catheter, and ICE. After the transseptal, which is an essential part of the procedure because the left side of the heart must be ablated, the team maps, detects where the arrhythmia is originating from and its rate, and then ablates the pulmonary veins. After those veins are ablated, the procedure is essentially complete.

CARTO offers a very specific and reliable mapping system, which is the advantage it has over other companies. The representatives are almost one hundred percent knowledgeable and helpful. They really assist during the case by detecting arrhythmias and fixing them.

CARTO performs a lot of ablations and fixes many heart conduction systems. This improves the lives of multiple people, which is a very good outcome.

The shape of the catheter currently being used, the FARAPULSE, is lasso-shaped and represents the first generation. The second generation is about to be implemented, and I believe it will be a major change. However, the shape of the current catheter is not really useful for isolating the veins. The ICE catheters are very good, and the mapping system is really excellent.

Other companies currently have a better catheter shape, even though they lack many things that CARTO has. That catheter shape makes a difference in the duration of the procedure.

CARTO has been in use for more than two years.

There are no stability issues.

There are no scalability issues.

CARTO's customer service is very good. Every time we have a problem, they know how to set it up and are always on the phone trying to help, or someone can come to the hospital for assistance.

CARTO has been used since the beginning. I have been using CARTO since September 2022 until now.

The initial setup was not problematic.

The implementation team was very good.

CARTO recently introduced a new type of ablation called PFA, Pulsed Field Ablation. It is very modern and has been used for a while in Europe. Now it is being used in the United States for the last year to year and a half. When this ablation is performed, patients do not return for a redo because it is very reliable. Studies show that people do not have a second ablation after the first one, which is a positive example.

My point of view is to pay attention to the mappers, as we can learn a lot from them. CARTO is a great system, and it is very interesting to see the heart conduction displayed in three dimensions. Learning from the mappers and visiting the CARTO website is beneficial. CARTO offers many courses that can help people understand and learn the system better. I would rate this review a nine overall.

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 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.

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.

My main use case for CARTO includes SVTs and PVCs, specifically for ablations. We use CARTO to map arrhythmias within the heart during ablations.

It is especially helpful for finding PVCs with CARTO because you can match by percentages.

One of the best features CARTO offers is the ability to match rhythms beat-by-beat, allowing us to pinpoint the exact location of the arrhythmia that we want to ablate.

The beat-by-beat matching with CARTO works well for us in practice, and it both saves time and improves accuracy.

I really appreciate the people involved, which adds to my overall experience with the features of CARTO.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization because the people that you hire are really nice to work with, and that makes all the difference.

Working with the CARTO team has made a positive impact because they are helpful with setting the room up and tearing it down, and they are always really personable and down to earth.

It would be beneficial if the patches of CARTO were not as susceptible to breakage, as the connections get broken frequently when we put them on the patient and take them off.

I have been using CARTO for about eight years.

CARTO is stable.

CARTO could grow even more using PFA technologies regarding its scalability.

The customer support for CARTO is great. I would rate the customer support for CARTO as a 10 on a scale of one to 10.

I have not previously used a different solution; I have worked with CARTO throughout my entire career.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing CARTO; those were assigned to each case based on what the doctor decided.

My advice to others looking into using CARTO is to not be afraid to ask questions. I would rate this review a 10 overall.

During my live project, I used CARTO as an interface to access GeoJSON files and other geospatial data while analyzing very different aspects, including population, satellite imagery, and identifying patterns based on geographical data.

My main use case for CARTO is primarily that functionality. Additionally, CARTO helped us with citing existing data about patterns in a specific area. To map it out and visualize it, CARTO was of great help, and linking it with different workforces and different platforms made it even more useful.

According to me, the best features of CARTO are, firstly, the visualization of maps and satellite imageries. Additionally, it has a cloud native architecture, so CARTO eliminates data fragmentation and technical bottlenecks that other GIS systems experience. It has an in-built AI agent, which makes the work very easy because I do not have to work manually as I did previously. CARTO also has an analytics toolbox and workflows, which makes it easy to plot and analyze data.

Regarding how the AI agent helped me in my project, it has an Agent Configuration Assistant which helped me design, set up, and iterate on agents using natural language. I can simply state what I want naturally without having to use a lot of technical terminology because I come from a management background and may not know the technical details. It understands that and supports Claude, so there is very good compatibility.

In the visualization aspect of CARTO, I found an auto styling feature that automatically analyzes map data, identifies trends and relationships, and highlights them by applying the best visual layers. I do not have to think about what to move forward with; it automatically provides recommendations which are very handy.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization and project because I was previously using traditional GIS systems. We had a team of five or six people, with some who knew the technical aspects and some who saw it from a business perspective. The cross-team accessibility that CARTO provided made it much easier for us as analysts to give a decision to a company because I could understand the technical data and translate it for laypeople as well. That made it easier for decision-makers to understand what we were trying to communicate.

If I consider how CARTO can be improved, the AI agent can become better eventually because we are in a changing landscape. CARTO could expand their LLM support; right now, it operates more on Claude as an AI agent. If it could include Azure, which is for Microsoft, or AWS Bedrock, which is for Amazon, it would help us integrate data more easily. I did not find many restrictions or problems beyond that.

If CARTO had better compatibility with Microsoft, it could present data forward better because the connectivity becomes difficult. One major aspect we found as a hindrance was the pricing; it felt too expensive for us. We were students at that time, so it was very expensive, and there are many cheaper alternatives available. The high cost became tedious for us.

I have been using CARTO for a good seven to eight months.

CARTO is stable; however, it buffers a lot with heavy data sets.

CARTO can handle larger projects or data sets, but it does buffer a lot. Compared to offline software, it takes a lot of time, though it can handle it; it is just time-consuming.

I did not have the need to interact with the CARTO customer support team.

Earlier, I used QGIS as software and then had different visualization tools for viewing purposes, such as Kepler. The only reason for my switch was firstly that it was recommended to us and secondly, the cross-platform team accessibility. If I am using CARTO, my peers can use it at the same time, making it better for us in terms of compatibility and synchronization.

We used CARTO as students, and there was a trial period for fourteen days. Once our fourteen days ended, it became very expensive and we lost our workflows in the process because working on any project takes more than fourteen days. The entire setup was very pricey for us being students.

For our project, it was really helpful and a great learning opportunity. From the organization perspective for whom we were doing this project, CARTO saved them a lot of hassle and tons of money because the information we provided based on maybe a twenty to thirty day research using the software would have required at least six to eight months of the same amount of research. Time was saved for them significantly.

There was a trial period for fourteen days. Once our fourteen days ended, it became very expensive and we lost our workflows in the process because working on any project takes more than fourteen days. The entire setup was very pricey for us being students.

Before selecting CARTO, I evaluated QGIS, which overall was one hundred percent free and open source. The only downside is that on QGIS, I had to download it on my laptop or Windows system, which became restrictive. At that point, CARTO being cloud native made it easier for us to synchronize and for a business use case. QGIS is good for learning purposes, but for scaling purposes, I do not think it goes a long way.

I definitely saved a lot of time using CARTO, and it helped me because I do not come from a very technical background, so it provided me ease and the capability to use such software and give recommendations without actually going into the technical details and focusing on the problem the company had.

The advice I would give to others looking into using CARTO is to do a breakeven analysis for themselves on what amount they will be earning using the software before investing in it because of the price question. Secondly, I would suggest that if they are working on teams or any large organization or enterprise-based system, then CARTO is very use specific. I would rate this review an eight 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.

I work in a government hospital in Baghdad, Iraq. My main use case for CARTO is that I work on all cases, from AVNRT to VT, and I have performed all cases, including atrial fibrillation on CARTO and VT.

The best features of CARTO that I use most during my procedures are pattern matching, voltage mapping, substrate mapping, and anatomical mapping when I take points.

CARTO has impacted my lab overall by allowing for short procedure times. I do not use fluoroscopy, which is very important. It results in short procedure times, no use of fluoroscopy, and successful outcomes in all cases with CARTO.

There are features in CARTO that I do not use very much, such as the Ablation Index, which is very important for AF ablation. Additionally, when I take all ECG references in VT, I think the option is called all ECG reference, which is very important when I have taken it in VT. I think the feature of histogram is very important in re-entry mapping.

I have been using both CARTO and EnSite X for more than five years in daily EP practice, and from real-world experience, CARTO is not just a 3D mapping system.

I value CARTO because it is more than stable, and I can perform all cases, including difficult cases, with CARTO because it is stable and easy to use.

Before I started using CARTO, the system I was using in the lab was fluoroscopy, but we also had the conventional system. CARTO does not have a conventional or EP study system.

When I start a procedure and open CARTO, I connect all catheters in the PIU and start to form the geometry. Before that, I prepare the window of interest for the case. For VT, I will take a QRS template and perform pattern matching.

When I use CARTO during procedures, it is just the doctor and I operating the system. There is no need for anyone else because CARTO will do everything. Fluoroscopy is not needed when you use CARTO.

When my lab was choosing CARTO, CARTO was the only option and we did not consider any other mapping systems.

I hope to have more training, but I think I am performing well currently. I would rate this review as highly positive based on my experience with CARTO.

My main use case for CARTO includes plantation monitoring, EUDR compliance, mapping, and deforestation analysis.

CARTO is really useful, and I appreciate the detailed example shared. The best features CARTO offers include the ability to handle raster and vector data together, which is important for my work because it helps me compare efficiently with other tools I have tried.

CARTO has positively impacted my organization by helping me save time, and I can share more about how much time I save and how my workflow is faster with CARTO, including specific outcomes or metrics. CARTO has also helped my team collaborate better and share data more easily.

I would like to add more about the needed improvements for CARTO, possibly something else that would make my experience even better.

Regarding CARTO's AI capabilities, I trust it, but not at one hundred percent because I do not know all the third parties around the data, and I wish to know more about it.

I have been using CARTO for almost six months.

I find CARTO stable.

I would rate CARTO's scalability as good.

The customer support I have received from CARTO is good; it is not bad.

Before CARTO, I previously used Google Earth Engine, but I switched because Google Earth Engine does not take into account every parameter, and CARTO is more comprehensive.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is a little bit expensive.

I have seen a return on investment with CARTO, as I have saved time, money, and resources, including human resources since using it.

Before choosing CARTO, I did not evaluate other options.

The language is a challenge; Cameroon is a bilingual country, but there are not more than five people who master English in my organization. Most of my colleagues are French speakers, so the interface should be available in both English and French for easy transition and smooth working.

I faced challenges when trying to import some data from my personal computer, but besides that, CARTO integration is smooth with other tools or systems I use.

I would describe the learning curve for new users on my team as moderate.

I have not used CARTO's mobile features or apps.

My advice for others looking into using CARTO is to have a quick review of the basics in GIS mapping. CARTO does provide the basics, but without basic skills, navigating it can be quite challenging, so having some experience with traditional GIS software is valuable.

I found this interview a bit too fast at times; you do not listen. I would rate this interview at a nine point five out of ten.