Reliability and Influence on Decision Making of fully-automated vs. semi-automated Software Packages for Procedural Planning in TAVI

Precise procedural planning is crucial to achieve excellent results in patients undergoing Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to compare the semi-automated 3mensio (3 m) software to the fully-automated HeartNavigator3 (HN) software. We randomly selected 100 patients from our in-house TAVI-registry and compared aortic annulus and perimeter as well as coronary distances between 3m-measurements and post-hoc HN-measurements. Finally, we retrospectively simulated prosthesis choice based on HN-measurements and analyzed the differences compared to routinely used 3 m based strategy. We observed significant differences between the two software packages regarding area (3 m 464 ± 88 mm², HN 482 ± 96 mm², p < 0.001), perimeter (3 m 77 ± 7 mm, HN 79 ± 8 mm, p < 0.001) and coronary distances (LCA: 3 m 13 ± 3 mm, HN 12 ± 3 mm, p < 0.001; RCA: 3 m 16 ± 3 mm, HN 15 ± 3 mm, p < 0.001). Prosthesis choice simulation based on newly obtained HN-measurements would have led to a decision change in 18% of patients, with a further reduction to 4% following manual adjustment of HN-measurements. The fully-automatic HN-software provides higher values for annular metrics and lower annulus-to-coronary-ostia distances compared to 3m-software. Measurement differences did not influence clinical outcome. Both, the HN-software and the 3m-software are sophisticated, reliable and easy to use for the clinician. Manual adjustment of HN-measurements may increase precision in complex aortic annulus anatomy.