AbstractPrecise procedural planning is crucial to achieve excellent results in patients undergoing Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to compare the semi-automated 3mensio (3 m) software to the fully-automated HeartNavigator3 (HN) software. We randomly selected 100 patients from our in-house TAVI-registry and compared aortic annulus and perimeter as well as coronary distances between 3m-measurements and post-hoc HN-measurements. Finally, we retrospectively simulated prosthesis choice based on HN-measurements and analyzed the differences compared to routinely used 3 m based strategy. We observed significant differences between the two software packages regarding area (3 m 464 ± 88 mm², HN 482 ± 96 mm², p < 0.001), perimeter (3 m 77 ± 7 mm, HN 79 ± 8 mm, p < 0.001) and coronary distances (LCA: 3 m 13 ± 3 mm, HN 12 ± 3 mm, p < 0.001; RCA: 3 m 16 ± 3 mm, HN 15 ± 3 mm, p < 0.001). Prosthesis choice simulation based on newly obtained HN-measurements would have led to a decision change in 18% of patients, with a further reduction to 4% following manual adjustment of HN-measurements. The fully-automatic HN-software provides higher values for annular metrics and lower annulus-to-coronary-ostia distances compared to 3m-software. Measurement differences did not influence clinical outcome. Both, the HN-software and the 3m-software are sophisticated, reliable and easy to use for the clinician. Manual adjustment of HN-measurements may increase precision in complex aortic annulus anatomy.