{"id":1911,"date":"2026-08-04T23:17:46","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T23:17:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/?p=1911"},"modified":"2026-08-04T23:17:46","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T23:17:46","slug":"manufacturers-are-building-robots-to-draw-blood-and-place-feeding-tubes-as-hospitals-confront-staffing-gaps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/?p=1911","title":{"rendered":"Manufacturers Are Building Robots to Draw Blood and Place Feeding Tubes as Hospitals Confront Staffing Gaps"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Manufacturers<\/div>

<\/p>\n

\n

Two bedside procedures that have stayed almost entirely manual for decades are now the target of robotic automation<\/a>, and the companies building the machines are not primarily claiming they perform better than trained staff. They are claiming there are not enough trained staff.<\/p>\n

Blood collection is the more advanced of the two. Vitestro, a Netherlands company, has developed an autonomous phlebotomy system called Aletta that combines imaging, machine learning, and robotics to locate a vein, insert a needle, collect the sample, and dispose of the needle.<\/p>\n

Feeding tube placement is earlier. ENvue Medical has demonstrated a prototype called ENvue Drive that would have a robot insert an enteral feeding tube, built on top of an electromagnetic navigation platform the company already sells to U.S. hospitals.<\/p>\n

Neither the blood-draw robot nor the feeding tube robot is cleared by the FDA for autonomous use in the United States.<\/p>\n\n

What the Blood Draw Evidence Now Shows<\/h2>\n

The performance picture changed recently, and it is stronger than vendor marketing alone.<\/p>\n

Vitestro announced the publication of a multicenter clinical trial in the journal Clinical Chemistry, reported by CLP<\/a>, covering 1,633 patients across three outpatient phlebotomy departments in the Netherlands. The system achieved an overall first-stick success rate of 94.5 percent when a suitable vein was identified, including 97.4 percent in patients with a body mass index above 30, 93.4 percent in patients older than 65, and 92.7 percent in patients who reported difficult venous access. Eighty-two percent of patients said they would prefer the robotic system in future or had no preference.<\/p>\n

The qualifier in that first sentence is the one to hold onto. The success rate is calculated among patients in whom the system located a suitable vein, which means it does not capture the cases the machine declines.<\/p>\n

An earlier pivotal study of 609 participants reported a 95 percent first-stick rate, a hemolysis rate of 0.6 percent, a median procedure time of about one minute and 49 seconds, and no serious adverse events, according to 360Dx<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The comparison is narrower than the headline numbers suggest. As an analysis on Phlebotomy.com noted<\/a>, Northwestern Memorial’s current first-stick success rate with human phlebotomy staff is around 92 percent, and U.S. studies put the average for trained phlebotomists between 93 and 97 percent. A 94.5 percent robotic rate sits inside that band rather than above it.<\/p>\n\n

The Validation Work Still Running<\/h2>\n

Hospitals are not simply accepting the published figures. Northwestern Medicine is participating<\/a> in a multicenter trial validating the system’s performance and safety in U.S. settings, alongside Mayo Clinic and Baylor Scott and White Health.<\/p>\n

Mayo Clinic is leading a two-phase study whose first phase uses paired collections in healthy participants, comparing robotic results directly against manual phlebotomy on the common tests most patients have ordered. It evaluates specimen integrity measures including first-stick success, hemolysis and fill volume, which matters particularly for coagulation testing.<\/p>\n

Vitestro holds a CE mark in Europe and has placed systems in Dutch and Danish hospitals within clinical trials rather than routine service. The company has said it plans a European commercial launch and an FDA de novo submission, with the timeline for that submission still undetermined.<\/p>\n\n

The Feeding Tube Problem Is a Safety Problem First<\/h2>\n

The case for automating enteral tube placement rests on complication rates rather than throughput. More than a million feeding tubes are inserted in U.S. patients each year, and most are placed blind, with the person performing the procedure relying on experience and on the resistance they feel during insertion.<\/p>\n

ENvue chief executive Doron Besser told The Robot Report<\/a> that about 3 to 5 percent of feeding tube placements are misplaced and land in the lungs. “If that occurs, it creates a cascade of problems,”<\/em> he said. “It can cause lung collapse. Sometimes, one even leaves the feeding tube within the lungs, and it fills up the lung with fluid nutrients.”<\/em> That figure is the company’s, offered in support of its own product, and should be read accordingly.<\/p>\n

Patient movement is the technical obstacle. Besser noted that even heavily sedated and mechanically ventilated patients can move during the procedure, and that a nurse must simultaneously focus on calming the patient and inserting the tube. The company’s platform places a sensor at the tip of the feeding tube inside an electromagnetic field covering the chest and abdomen, so position is recalculated continuously as the patient shifts.<\/p>\n

ENvue is building the robotic system on its existing navigation platform, which has 510(k) FDA clearance for adult <\/a>use <\/a>and<\/span> provides real-time electromagnetic guidance during placement. ENvue Drive itself was unveiled as a first prototype in July and has not been cleared.<\/p>\n

That distinction is the most important one in this story. A cleared navigation aid that a clinician uses is a different regulatory object from a robot that performs the insertion.<\/p>\n\n

MedicalDaily Evidence Check<\/h2>\n

Robotic phlebotomy now has peer-reviewed multicenter data behind it, which is a meaningful change from a year ago. What it does not yet have is U.S. regulatory authorization, independent head-to-head results from the Mayo-led validation work, or evidence that automation changes patient outcomes rather than specimen metrics.<\/p>\n

Robotic feeding tube insertion is much further back. The underlying navigation platform is in commercial use and cleared, but the robotic insertion component is a demonstrated prototype. Bedside placement in ICU patients is a higher-acuity task performed on sicker people, which raises the evidence bar considerably.<\/p>\n

What is documented independently across both areas: phlebotomy failure rates rise substantially in patients without visible veins, hemolysis rates vary with operator experience, and feeding tube misplacement into the airway is a recognized and serious complication. Those are real problems that automation could plausibly address.<\/p>\n

What is not established: that either technology improves patient outcomes, that it reduces cost after accounting for capital and maintenance, or that it performs safely across the full range of patients a hospital actually admits. Vendor materials describing workforce relief are business claims, not clinical evidence.<\/p>\n\n

The Question for Patients and Staff<\/h2>\n

For patients, nothing changes immediately. Neither system is available for routine autonomous use in U.S. care. If a robotic blood draw is offered as part of a study at an outpatient lab, participation is voluntary, and declining should not affect care. Anyone with difficult veins, a history of fainting during blood draws, or a condition affecting the arms should say so.<\/p>\n

For nurses and phlebotomists, the realistic near-term picture is role change rather than replacement. If the technology succeeds, staff are likely to supervise devices, handle the draws the machine declines, and manage situations requiring judgment.<\/p>\n

The watchpoint is regulatory. Any device that performs an invasive procedure autonomously will need FDA authorization for that specific function, and the published evidence supporting those submissions is what should determine whether these systems reach bedsides. Purchasing decisions driven by staffing pressure rather than by outcome data would be the failure mode worth watching for.<\/p>\n\n\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n

What do these robots actually do?<\/strong> One system automates blood collection, from locating a vein through needle insertion, sample collection, and disposal. The other is a prototype designed to insert enteral feeding tubes using electromagnetic navigation.<\/p>\n

Which is closer to routine use?<\/strong> Robotic blood draw. It has peer-reviewed multicenter results, holds a European CE mark, and is undergoing U.S. validation. Robotic feeding tube insertion is a demonstrated prototype.<\/p>\n

Is either FDA cleared?<\/strong> Not for autonomous use. Vitestro has said it plans an FDA submission. ENvue’s navigation platform is 510(k) cleared for adult use, but the robotic insertion component is not.<\/p>\n

Are the robots better than trained staff?<\/strong> Not demonstrably. The published 94.5 percent first-stick rate sits inside the 93 to 97 percent range reported for trained human phlebotomists. The stated driver is staffing shortage, not superior performance.<\/p>\n

Can a robot handle a difficult blood draw?<\/strong> Partly. The published trial reported 92.7 percent first-stick success in patients reporting difficult venous access, but only among those in whom the system identified a suitable vein in the first place.<\/p>\n

Why automate feeding tube placement?<\/strong> The company developing it cites a 3 to 5 percent misplacement rate in which tubes land in the lungs, a complication that can cause lung collapse or worse.<\/p>\n

What should regulators require?<\/strong> Authorization for the specific autonomous function, supported by published evidence on safety and specimen quality rather than manufacturer claims alone.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two bedside procedures that have stayed almost entirely manual for decades are now the target of robotic automation, and the companies building the machines are not primarily claiming they perform better than trained staff. They are claiming there are not enough trained staff. Blood collection is the more advanced of the two. Vitestro, a Netherlands…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1912,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/d.medicaldaily.com\/en\/full\/483985\/healthcares-new-robotic-assistant-editorial-illustration-via-ai.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[3601,485,3604,707,3602,3606,2473,3599,763,3600,3605,3603],"class_list":["post-1911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-health","tag-blood","tag-building","tag-confront","tag-draw","tag-feeding","tag-gaps","tag-hospitals","tag-manufacturers","tag-place","tag-robots","tag-staffing","tag-tubes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1911\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valutednews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}