Key result
The fully-automated HeartNavigator software yielded significantly larger aortic annulus area measurements (482 vs 464 mm², p<0.001) compared to the semi-automated 3mensio software, potentially altering prosthesis choice in 18% of patients.
Why the study?
Precise procedural planning is crucial for excellent TAVI outcomes, prompting a comparison between semi-automated 3mensio and fully-automated HeartNavigator3 software.
Does fully-automated HeartNavigator3 software alter procedural planning measurements and prosthesis choice compared to semi-automated 3mensio software in patients undergoing TAVI?
Observational (n=100)
No
Does fully-automated HeartNavigator3 software alter procedural planning measurements and prosthesis choice compared to semi-automated 3mensio software in patients undergoing TAVI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Fully-automated HeartNavigator3 software provides reliable TAVI procedural planning measurements but yields slightly larger annular dimensions than semi-automated 3mensio, highlighting the need for manual adjustment in complex anatomies.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meyer et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=100). HeartNavigator3 (HN) fully-automated software vs. 3mensio (3m) semi-automated software was evaluated on Aortic annulus area (MD 18.0, p=<0.001). The fully-automated HeartNavigator software yielded significantly larger aortic annulus area measurements (482 vs 464 mm², p<0.001) compared to the semi-automated 3mensio software, potentially altering prosthesis choice in 18% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: