The FDA recently approved a robotic blood drawing machine that rivals the performance of human phlebotomists. The official FDA announcement described the Aletta system made by the Netherlands-based company Vitestro as “the first standalone robotic device that can draw blood from a patient’s arm without hands-on operator intervention.”

Once a patient consents to having his or her blood drawn by the robot, the machine handles the entire process. The robotic system guides the patient to position their arm within the device, then uses a combination of ultrasound and near-infrared light to find a suitable vein. The robot then applies the tourniquet, disinfects the skin, inserts the needle, and withdraws blood, changing collecting tubes as necessary based on the specific blood tests ordered by the patient’s physician.

Afterwards, the robot withdraws the needle, places a bandage at the puncture site, and applies appropriate controlled pressure to the skin to prevent bleeding.

I was impressed by the system’s safety protocols. If the machine cannot find a suitable vein, it does not attempt a venipuncture. The robots are supervised by a human, who can intervene at a moment’s notice. (A trained supervisor is allowed to oversee up to three machines at a time.) The patient or the human supervisor can abort the procedure at any time during the procedure. As the FDA reported , “If a patient moves too much during the procedure, the needle automatically detaches and the draw stops; additional onboard sensors can pause the procedure and alert the supervisor if other unsafe conditions are detected.”

If you are curious what the system looks like, here is the official company video .

The system has already been approved in Europe. A recent clinical trial with over 1600 patients showed that the Aletta system performed comparably well as human phlebotomists. The robot achieved a “94.5% first-stick success rate” -- comparable to the 93-97% success rate for trained human phlebotomists. Moreover, “90% of patients reporting reduced or similar pain compared to manual phlebotomy.”

Aletta also did well with patients whom human phlebotomists typically find more challenging. The success rates for obese patients was 97.4% and for patient who described themselves as having “difficult” veins was 92.7% (compared to 75% - 85% for human phlebotomists.)

After their experience with the robotic system, 82% of patients said they would either prefer or feel neutral about having future blood draws performed by the robot as opposed to returning to a human phlebotomist.

Some of this data must be interpreted cautiously. The Aletta system is deliberately programmed not to attempt venipuncture if it cannot find a suitable vein. Therefore, the system’s success rates may be artificially elevated compared to humans who might still attempt a blood draw even if they have a hard time feeling the patient’s vein.

The Vitestro company is promoting this system as one way to help alleviate the shortage of trained phlebotomists. Essentially, the system can act as an extender for the humans. It does not (yet) fully replace humans phlebotomists. I have not yet found any reliable data as to what the phlebotomists themselves think about all this.

In my own unofficial polling of friends, the reactions to the idea of a robotic phlebotomist have been decidedly mixed. Some have been enthusiastic. Others have said, “No [expletive] way!” One friend jokingly compared the system to the fictional Gom Jabbar box in Dune , in which protagonist Paul Atreides was obliged to keep his hand trapped a pain-generating box as part of a willpower test, unable to withdraw it until the test was done. (My friend did understand that the real-life Aletta system does allow patients to abort the blood draw procedure on demand.)

In many ways, these patient responses mirror what we have already seen from the public regarding other robotic systems, such as driverless taxicabs. Some people are excited by the new technologies, whereas others are aghast at the idea. For some people, reading published safety and efficacy statistics helps ease their minds. And such data is, of course, an essential part of the regulatory approval process. But for others, numerical safety statistics are not the only factor in whether they would feel comfortable trusting these robots. Instead, there are additional deeper emotional and psychological factors at play.

I have not yet seen one of the Aletta systems in active clinical use in the US. But after reviewing the data, I’d personally be glad to let the robot draw blood on myself as a patient.