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 begin‑ ner 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% (χ 2 (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.

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 begin‑ ner 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% (χ 2 (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.

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 begin‑ ner 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% (χ 2 (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.

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 begin‑ ner 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% (χ 2 (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.