GE Healthcare technology is easier to use than its competitors

Each novice user completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and ISONORM questionnaires, which were designed to provide a quick overview of the software’s usability. While SUS scores represent a “valid and reliable tool,” the authors found that ISONOFORM scores are an even better way to identify problems with how people interact with systems or products. Overall, Valve Assist 2 was associated with a higher mean SUS score (78.25 vs. 65) and a higher mean ISONORM score (1.05 vs. 0.05).

With Valve Assist 2, users would have to ask fewer questions, the authors added, and it would lead to faster measurements.

Novices used these software offerings on two test days – Test Day 1 (T1) and Test Day 2 (T2). With Valve Assist 2, the correct valves were selected 72.7% of the time on T1 and 69.7% on T2. ​​With 3mensio Structural Heart, users selected the correct valve a whopping 93.94% of the time on T1, but that number dropped to 40% on T2. ​​This sudden drop in Pie Medical imaging software, the researchers said, could be seen as additional evidence that it is more difficult for novices to use than GE Healthcare’s Valve Assist 2.

The group concluded that GE Healthcare’s Valve Assist 2 was significantly better in terms of ease of use than Pie Medical Imaging’s 3mensio Structural Heart. This may only apply to inexperienced users, they noted, but the data suggest that “the choice of a particular semi-automated TAVR planning software may have an impact on the TAVR planning process.”

“Further studies with a study population of experienced TAVR specialists are needed to assess the impact of the usability of semi-automated software programs on sizing and ultimately clinical outcomes,” the authors added.

Butter et al. emphasized that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report; they had no relationships with GE Healthcare or Pie Medical Imaging that might have influenced this analysis. It’s worth noting that this study was originally conducted in late 2018. The two software offerings evaluated may look very different today than they did then.

Click here to read the full study.