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.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the standard treatment for elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis. Although safe and well-established, there is a risk of intraprocedural hemodynamic instability and silent cerebral embolism, which can lead to a decline in neurocognitive function and dementia. In clinical practice, comprehensive cognitive testing is difficult to perform. AI-assisted digital applications may help to optimize diagnosis and monitoring. METHODS: Neurocognitive function was assessed by validated psychometric tests using "∆elta -App", which uses artificial intelligence and computational linguistic methods for extraction and analysis. Memory function was assessed using the 'Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease' (CERAD) word list and digit span task (DST) before TAVR and before hospital discharge. The study is registered in the German Register of Clinical Trials (https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00020813). RESULTS: From October 2020 until March 2022, 141 patients were enrolled at University Hospital Heart Centre Brandenburg. Mean age was 81 ± 6 years, 42.6% were women. Time between the pre- and post-interventional test was on average 6 ± 3 days. Memory function before TAVR was found to be below average in relation to age and educational level. The pre-post TAVR comparison showed significant improvements in the wordlist repeat, P < 0.001 and wordlist recall test of CERAD, P < 0.001. There were no changes in the digital span test. CONCLUSIONS Despite impaired preoperative memory function before TAVR, no global negative effect on memory function after TVAR was detected. The improvements shown in the word list test should be interpreted as usual learning effects in this task.