Usability and accuracy of two different aortic annulus sizing software programs in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
Abstract
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.
참고문헌 (33)
- Iung B, "Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult", Nat Rev Cardiol, 8, pp.162~172 (2011)
- Eveborn GW, "The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. The Tromsø study", Heart, 99, pp.396~400 (2013)
- Ramos J, "Large-scale assessment of aortic stenosis : facing the next cardiac epidemic?", Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging, 19, pp.1142~1148 (2018)
- Francone M, "CT and MR imaging prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation : standardisation of scanning protocols, measurements and reporting-a consensus document by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology(ESCR)", Eur Radiol, 30, pp.2627~2650 (2020)
- Jilaihawi H, "Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation", J Am Coll Cardiol, 59, pp.1275~1286 (2012)
- Kempfert J, "Aortic annulus sizing : echocardiographic versus computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing", Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 42, pp.627~633 (2012)
- Otto CM, "2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of adults with aortic stenosis : a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents", J Am Coll Cardiol, 69, pp.1313~1346 (2017)
- Delgado V, "Automated assessment of the aortic root dimensions with multidetector row computed tomography", Ann Thorac Surg, 91, pp.716~723 (2011)
- Horehledova B, "Aortic root evaluation prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation-correlation of manual and semi-automatic measurements", PLoS One, 13, pp.e0199732~ (2018)
- Veulemans V, "Comparison of manual and automated preprocedural segmentation tools to predict the annulus plane angulation and C-arm positioning for transcatheter aortic valve replacement", PLoS One, 11, pp.e0151918~ (2016)
- Watanabe Y, "Automated 3-dimensional aortic annular assessment by multidetector computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation", JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 6, pp.955~964 (2013)
- Baeßler B, "Software-automated multidetector computed tomography-based prosthesis-sizing in transcatheter aortic valve replacement : Inter-vendor comparison and relation to patient outcome", Int J Cardiol, 272, pp.267~272 (2018)
- Stortecky S, "Accuracy and reproducibility of aortic annulus sizing using a dedicated three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction tool in patients evaluated for transcatheter aortic valve replacement", EuroIntervention, 10, pp.339~346 (2014)
- Guez D, "Automated and manual measurements of the aortic annulus with ECG-gated cardiac CT angiography prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement : comparison with 3D-transesophageal echocardiography", Acad Radiol, 24, pp.587~593 (2017)
- Coughlan JJ, "Annular rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation : predictors, management and outcomes", Interv Cardiol, 13, pp.140~144 (2018)
- Johnson CW, "Why did that happen? Exploring the proliferation of barely usable software in healthcare systems", Qual Saf Health Care, 15(Suppl 1), pp.i76~i81 (2006)
- Sarodnick F, "Methods of usability evaluation: scientific principles and practical application" (2015), Hogrefe Verlag
- Sauro J, "A practical guide to the system usability scale: background, benchmarks & best practices" (2011), CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
- Brooke J, "SUS : a retrospective", J Usability Exp, 8, pp.29~40 (2013)
- Figl K, "Comparison of German-language questionnaires for usability evaluation", Z Arbeitswiss, 4, pp.321~337 (2010)
- "System usability questionnaire" (2013)[URL]
- "ISONORM 9241/110-S evaluation of software based on the international ergonomics standard DIN EN ISO 9241-110" (2008)[URL]
- Prümper J, "Software ergonomics – ergonomically designed and tested", Comput Work, 8-9, pp.17~21 (2007)
- Pataki K, "Reports on the 45th Congress of the German Psychological Society", pp.258~259 (2006), Pabst Science Publishers
- Prümper J, "Software-Ergonomie ’97. Usability Engineering: Integration von Mensch-Computer-Interaktion und Software-Entwicklung", pp.253~262 (1997), Teubner Verlag
- Cohen J, "Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences" (1988), L. Erlbaum Associates
- Brooke J, "Usability evaluation in industry", pp.189~194 (1996), Taylor and Francis
- Bangor A, "Determining what individual SUS scores mean : adding an adjective rating scale", J Usability Exp, 4, pp.114~123 (2009)
- "Edwards SAPIEN 3 kit-transfemoral: instructions for use" (2017)[URL]
- "German Society for Psychology creation of a personal code word by the test subjects" (2014)[URL]
- Gagnon R, "Assessment in the context of uncertainty : how many members are needed on the panel of reference of a script concordance test?", Med Educ, 39, pp.284~291 (2005)
- Xuan Y, "Impact of transcatheter aortic valve size on leaflet stresses : implications for durability and optimal grey zone sizing", AsiaIntervention, 6, pp.64~71 (2020)
- Koo TK, "A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research", J Chiropr Med, 15, pp.155~163 (2016)
