CARTO Reviews

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 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.

In my project, I used CARTO to create a choropleth map showing population density by administrative area. I imported a CSV file with demographic data, joined it with geographic boundaries, and used CARTO's styling option to visualize the difference across regions. I also experimented with spatial filtering and basic aggregation to explore patterns in the data. It was a good way to understand how CARTO handles data visualization and spatial analysis.

My main use case was exploring CARTO for spatial data visualization and basic geophysical analysis.

From my experience, the best feature for CARTO is how easy it is to create interactive maps. I could import data, customize the map styling, and visualize spatial patterns without needing a lot of coding. I also found the built-in spatial analysis tools useful for simple tasks such as filtering, aggregating, and identifying geographic patterns. Another feature I appreciated was its clean interface, which made it relatively easy to learn and navigate as a new user.

One feature I found especially helpful was the filtering and aggregation tools. After importing my dataset, I filtered the data to focus on a specific region and then aggregated the results by administrative boundaries to make the map easier to interpret. It helped me identify patterns without having to write complex queries. I also appreciated the map customization option. I could easily change the color scheme, adjust the classification method, and customize the pop-ups to display relevant information. Those features made the map much more intuitive and visually appealing, especially when presenting the results.

Since I used CARTO mainly for a personal learning project rather than within an organization, I cannot really speak to its impact on organizational workflow. However, from my experience, it made the process of visualizing spatial data much faster and more organized. Creating an interactive map and sharing insights was straightforward, which I can see being valuable for collaboration and decision-making in a team environment.

I had a positive experience with CARTO, but I think there are a few areas where it could be improved. As a new user, I found that some of the more advanced geospatial analysis features have a bit of a learning curve. More step-by-step tutorials and in-app guidance would make it easier for beginners to get started. I also think the interface could make some advanced settings easier to find, since I occasionally had to spend time looking through the documentation. Other than that, I found the platform intuitive and capable for creating maps and exploring spatial data. CARTO is the best tool for the visualization of data.

An additional area for improvement is performance when working with large datasets. I mostly worked with small datasets, so I did not run into major issues myself, but I think optimizing performance for larger projects would be beneficial. I also think expanding integrations and making the setup process even more seamless for different data sources could improve the overall experience. Finally, having more built-in templates or guided workflows for common geospatial analysis tasks would help new users become productive more quickly.

I have been using CARTO for a short period as part of my project.

My experience was limited to small-scale projects, so I did not have the opportunity to test CARTO's capability with large datasets or enterprise workloads. For the projects I worked on, it handled everything smoothly, and the performance was consistent. Based on what I saw, it appears capable of supporting larger use cases, but I do not have enough hands-on experience to evaluate its scalability beyond my own project.

The documentation was clear enough for the basic tasks I was working on, such as importing data, creating maps, and exploring the platform. Because of that, I did not need to contact customer support.

From a user perspective, I found it straightforward to get started. The account setup and onboarding process were simple, so I was able to start importing data and building maps fairly quickly.

Since I used CARTO for a personal learning project rather than in a business environment, I cannot really measure ROI in terms of money saved or reduced staffing. The main benefit I noticed was time savings. Compared to creating maps manually, I estimate it saved me about one to two hours on a small project because importing data, styling maps, and generating visualizations was much more efficient.

I did not conduct an informal evaluation process since this was a learning project. I chose CARTO because it was well-known for geospatial visualization and easy to get started with. I was aware of other GIS tools such as QGIS and ArcGIS, but I did not conduct a detailed features-by-features comparison before using CARTO.

I found CARTO to be user-friendly, especially for creating interactive maps and performing basic spatial analysis. One thing I also appreciated was how quickly I could go from importing data to producing a visualization, which made the learning process smooth. Those were the features that stood out the most to me.

I do not have a precise figure because I was not tracking my time, but I estimate it saved me about an hour on a small project. Most of the time savings came from how quickly I could import data, customize the map, and generate visualizations compared with doing those steps manually.

My advice would be to start with a small project so you can become familiar with the platform before moving on to more advanced workflows. Take advantage of the documentation and tutorials, since they make the learning process much easier. I also recommend spending some time understanding your data before importing it because having well-organized data makes it much easier to create meaningful visualizations and perform spatial analysis. Overall, I think CARTO is a good option for anyone looking to create interactive maps and explore geospatial data without a complicated setup.

I had a positive experience with CARTO. Even though I used it mainly for a learning project, I found it intuitive and easy to get started with. It made creating interactive maps and exploring spatial data much more accessible. I think it has a lot of potential for more advanced use cases, and I would be interested in exploring more of its features in the future. I gave CARTO a rating of eight out of ten.