ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Pre-TAVI aortic annulus sizing: comparison between manual and semi-automated new generation software measurements in operators with different experience.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of fully-automated AI based CT-analysis on pre-procedural TAVI planning.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- AI-assisted computed tomography analysis for pre-procedural planning prior to TAVI.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Ethnic variation in aortic root anatomy and prosthesis sizing in TAVI: a UK matched study.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAim of the study is to compare manual and semi-automatic measurements for aortic annulus assessment among different operators.
methodsEighty patients who underwent TAVI were retrospectively enrolled. The measurements manually performed by an experienced reader for aortic annulus (minimum and maximum diameters, perimeter, area), annulus-to-coronary ostia distance and time needed for the whole evaluation, were collected. The same operator (observer 1) and two less experienced readers (observer 2 and 3, with >5 years and 1 year of experience, respectively) assessed the same measurements using a semi-automatic software. Differences between manual and semi-automatic measurements, reading time and suggested valves size derived by CT were compared.
resultsVery good correlations were found between manual and software-aided measurements for aortic annulus area and perimeter in comparison with standard measurements for the three readers (ICC range 0.81-0.98). Good correlations were found for the distance with coronary ostia(0.75-0.79). The same area-derived prosthesis size for manual and semi-automatic measurements was selected in 96% of cases for observer 1; very good correlations were also found for observer 2 and 3 (ICC = 0.89 and 0.88, respectively). Using semi-automatic measurements, the mean time needed for CT images was significantly lower for observers 1 and 2 (1.50 and 1.72versus 3.14 min), respectively.
conclusionsPre-TAVI CT using semi-automatic software allows accurate and reproducible measurements, reducing reconstruction time up to 50% and is reliable even for operators with different experience. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The use of semi-automatic dedicated software for CT in TAVI planning is reliable even for operators without long time experience and allows accurate and reproducible measurements improving pre-TAVI workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.