Background Although 3D echocardiography (3DE) allows accurate and reproducible quantification of cardiac chambers, it has not been integrated into clinical practice because it relies on manual input, which interferes with workflow. A recently developed automated adaptive analytics algorithm for simultaneous quantification of left ventricular and atrial (LV, LA) volumes was found to be accurate and reproducible in patients with good images. We sought to prospectively test its feasibility and accuracy in consecutive patients in relationship with image quality and reader experience. Methods Three hundred consecutive patients underwent 3DE. Image quality was graded as poor, adequate, or good. Images were analyzed by an expert echocardiographer to obtain LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) and LA volume using the automated analysis (HeartModel, Philips, Andover, MA) with and without editing the endocardial boundaries and using conventional manual tracing (QLAB, Philips, Andover, MA) blinded to the automated measurements as a reference. In a subgroup of 100 patients, automated analysis was repeated by two readers without 3DE experience. Results Automated analysis failed in 31/300 patients (10%). Patients with poor image quality (n = 72, 24%) showed suboptimal agreement with the reference technique, especially for LVEF. Importantly, patients with adequate (n = 89, 30%) and good (n = 108, 36%) images showed small biases and excellent correlations without border corrections, which were further improved with editing. In contrast, border corrections by inexperienced readers did not improve the agreement with reference values. Conclusions Automated 3DE analysis allows accurate quantification of left-heart size and function in 66% of consecutive patients, while in the remaining patients, its performance is limited/unreliable due to image quality. Border corrections require 3DE experience to improve the accuracy of the automated measurements. In patients with sufficient image quality, this automated approach has the potential to overcome the workflow limitations of the 3D analysis in clinical practice.

Objectives We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of same‐day discharge after uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR. Background At the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic, we created a same‐day discharge (SDD) pathway after conscious sedation, transfemoral (minimalist) TAVR to help minimize risk of viral transmission and conserve hospital resources. Studies support that next‐day discharge (NDD) for carefully selected patients following minimalist TAVR is safe and feasible. There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of SDD after TAVR. Methods In‐hospital and 30 day outcomes of consecutive patients meeting pre‐specified criteria for SDD after minimalist TAVR at our institution between March and July of 2020 were reviewed. Outcomes were compared to a NDD cohort from July 2018 through July 2020 that would have met SDD criteria. Primary endpoints were mortality, delayed pacemaker placement, stroke and cardiovascular readmission at 30 days. Results Twenty nine patients were discharged via the SDD pathway after TAVR. 128 prior NDD patients were identified who met all criteria for SDD. The STS scores were similar between the two groups (SDD 2.6% ±1.5 vs. NDD 2.3% ± 1.2). There were no deaths at 30 days in either group. There was no significant difference in delayed pacemaker placement (SDD 0% vs. NDD 0.8%, p > .99) or cardiovascular readmission (SDD 0% vs. NDD 5.5%, p = .35) at 30 days. Conclusions Same day discharge following uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR in selected patients appears to be safe, achieving similar 30 day outcomes as a cohort of next day discharge patients.

No abstract