Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Usability and accuracy of two different aortic annulus sizing software programs in patients undergoing transcatheter
Johannes Spanke1, Jonathan Nübel2, Frank Hölschermann2
1Department of Cardiology, Heart Centre Brandenburg Bernau & Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB) Theodor Fontane, Ladeburger Straße 17, Bernau bei Berlin, 16321, Germany. spanke.j@posteo.de.
Background:
Semi-automated software is essential for planning and prosthesis selection prior transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Reliable data on the usability of software programs for planning a TAVR is missing. The aim of this study was to compare software programs 'Valve Assist 2' (GE Healthcare) and 3mensio 'Structural Heart' (Pie Medical Imaging) regarding usability and accuracy of prosthesis size selection in program-inexperienced users.
Methods:
Thirty-one participants (n = 31) were recruited and divided into program-inexperienced users (beginners) (n = 22) and experts (n = 9). After software training, beginners evaluated 3 patient cases in 129 measurements (n = 129) using either Valve Assist 2 (n = 11) or Structural Heart (n = 11) on 2 test days (T1, T2). System Usability Scale (SUS) and ISONORM 9241/110-S (ISONORM) questionnaire were used after the test. The valve size selected by each beginner was compared with the valve size selected from expert group.
Results:
Valve Assist 2 had higher SUS Score: median 78.75 (25th, 75th percentile: 67.50, 85.00) compared to Structural Heart: median 65.00 (25th, 75th percentile: 47.50, 73.75), (p < 0,001, r = 0.557). Also, Valve Assist 2 showed a higher ISONORM score: median 1.05 (25th, 75th percentile: - 0.19, 1.71) compared to Structural Heart with a median 0.05 (25th, 75th percentile: - 0.49, 0.13), (p = 0.036, r = 0.454). Correctly selected valve sizes were stable over time using Valve Assist 2: 72.73% to 69.70% compared to Structural Heart program: 93.94% to 40% (χ2 (1) = 21.10, p < 0.001, φ = 0.579).
Conclusion:
The study shows significant better usability scores for Valve Assist 2 compared to 3mensio Structural Heart in program-inexperienced users.
More Related Videos
06:59Improved Registration of 3D CT Angiography with X-ray Fluoroscopy for Image Fusion During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: June 3, 2018
09:57Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Guided Valve Sizing for Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement
Published on: January 20, 2022
