The results showed there was no difference in navigation times with either ELVIS or EAMS, but the physicians were significantly more accurate with ELVIS, with an error margin of just 2.99 mm, compared to 4.50 mm for EAMS. When translated to cardiac ablation outcomes, 34% of the ablation lesions created using EAMS would be made outside of the target area, as opposed to just 6% when using the ELVIS 3D display. The study was published on August 17, 2020, in Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Clinic
A team from the Washington University School of Medicine developed a system with Microsoft Hololens to help surgeons to visualize digital images from a standard 2D electroanatomic mapping system. Preliminary study seems to show that this way to present pictures, in real time, increases the control of surgeons on their actions.