| Literature DB >> 28964555 |
Saul Crandon1, Mohammed S M Elbaz2, Jos J M Westenberg2, Rob J van der Geest2, Sven Plein3, Pankaj Garg1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) is an emerging non-invasive imaging technology used to visualise and quantify intra-cardiac blood flow. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the literature on the current clinical applications of intra-cardiac 4D flow CMR.Entities:
Keywords: 4D flow CMR; 4D flow MRI; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Four-dimensional; Intra-cardiac; Systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28964555 PMCID: PMC5687937 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol ISSN: 0167-5273 Impact factor: 4.164
Fig. 1Overview of study selection process. Panel A = Article screening algorithm. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 936 studies using this system. The number of studies excluded at each stage is shown. Panel B = Flow diagram used for identifying the included studies. The full-texts of the 73 studies that were identified from the screening process were assessed. Of these, 4 (5.5%) were excluded as being irrelevant to the systematic review. The remaining 69 studies underwent citation tracking through the OvidSP databases, as well as manual reference searching. This process identified a further 4 relevant studies for inclusion. Of the final 73 studies included, 44 (60.3%) were full studies, whereas 29 (39.7%) were abstracts only. Flow diagram adapted from Moher et al. [11]. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 2009. 6 (7):e1000097. The PRISMA Statement is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium.
Fig. 2Graphical representations of the percentage of clinical applicability against various study design factors, Panel A = against study type, Panel B = against study year, Panel C = against the 4D flow methods used and Panel D = against intra-cardiac structure. KE = kinetic energy, TKE = turbulent kinetic energy, Haem forces = haemodynamic forces, RVT = retrospective valve tracking, JSLD = jet shear layer detection method, VT = volume tracking, RV = regurgitant volume, LA = left atrium, LV = left ventricle, MV = mitral valve, AV = aortic valve, TV = tricuspid valve, PV = pulmonary valve, RA = right atrium, RV = right ventricle.
Summary of included studies.
| Author(s), year | Study type | Cohort | Methods | Applicability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left atrium | ||||
| Lee et al., 2016 | Mechanistic | 30 HV, 40 AF | Velocity profile | Highly |
| Markl et al., 2016 | Retrospective mechanistic | 8 HV, 62 AF | Velocity profile | Highly |
| Markl et al., 2016 | Mechanistic | 30 HV, 81 AF | Velocity profile and its maps | Highly |
| Markl et al., 2016 | Retrospective mechanistic | 15 HV, 60 AF | Velocity profile | Highly |
| Steding-Ehrenborg et al., 2015 | Retrospective mechanistic | 14 HV, 14 athletes | KE | Highly |
| Suwa et al., 2015 | Prospective mechanistic | 9 HV, 15 No OHD, 17 OHD | Pathline visualisation of vortex | Highly |
| Arvidsson et al., 2013 | Mechanistic | 15 HV | KE | Highly |
| Fluckiger et al., 2013 | Pilot | 19 HV, 10 AF | Flow velocity distribution | Less |
| Foll et al., 2013 | Mechanistic | 24 HV | Vortex and flow visualisation | Potentially |
| Dyverfeldt et al., 2011 | Pilot | 2 HV, 5 MR | Particle tracing visualisation and turbulent KE | Potentially |
| Fyrenius et al., 2001 | Mechanistic | 11 HV | Particle tracing visualisation | Highly |
| Left ventricle | ||||
| Eriksson et al., | Mechanistic | 10 HV, 10 DCM | Global haemodynamic forces | Potentially |
| Suwa et al., 2016 | Mechanistic | 22 pEF, 14 rEF | Pathline visualisation of vortex | Highly |
| Svalbring et al., 2016 | Mechanistic | 10 HV, 26 IHD | KE | Potentially |
| Van Ooij et al., 2016 | Mechanistic | 10 HV, 35 HCM | Pressure gradients and viscous energy loss | Highly |
| Wong et al., 2016 | Prospective mechanistic | 35 HV, 10 rEF | KE | Highly |
| Al-Wakeel et al., 2015 | Pilot | 7 HV, 10 MR | KE | Potentially |
| Eriksson et al., 2015 | Mechanistic | 12 HV | Pressure gradients | Potentially |
| Kanski et al., 2015 | Prospective mechanistic | 12 HV, 29 HF | KE | Highly |
| Kanski et al., 2015 | Pilot | 8 HV, 20 HF | Particle tracing visualisation and kinetic energy | Highly |
| Steding-Ehrenborg et al., 2015 | Retrospective mechanistic | 14 HV, 14 athletes | KE | Highly |
| Zajac et al., 2014 | Mechanistic | 11 HV, 9 DD | Turbulent KE | Less |
| Elbaz et al., 2014 | Pilot | 24 HV | Vortex visualisation | Highly |
| Eriksson et al., 2013 | Prospective mechanistic | 10 HV, 10 DCM | Pathline visualisation and KE | Highly |
| Foll et al., 2013 | Mechanistic | 24 HV | Particle tracing and velocity vector visualisation | Potentially |
| Carlsson et al., 2012 | Pilot | 9 HV | KE | Potentially |
| Toger et al., 2012 | Mechanistic | 9 HV, 4 DCM | Vortex visualisation | Less |
| Brandts et al., 2011 | Prospective diagnostic | 47 HF | Diastolic function using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Eriksson et al., 2011 | Mechanistic | 12 HV, 1 DCM | Pathline visualisation and KE | Less |
| Kumar et al., 2011 | Prospective pilot | 15 DD | Flow visualisation | Less |
| Toger et al., 2011 | Pilot | 8 HV, 1 ALVA | Volume tracking | Less |
| Eriksson et al., 2010 | Pilot | 6 HV, 3 DCM | Pathline visualisation | Highly |
| Bolger et al., 2007 | Pilot | 17 HV, 1 DCM | Particle tracing and KE | Potentially |
| Ebbers et al., 2002 | Pilot | 1 HV | Pressure gradients | Less |
| Kim et al., 1995 | Mechanistic | 26 HV | Flow visualisation | Highly |
| Mitral valve | ||||
| Marsan et al., 2009 | Diagnostic | 64 MR | Regurgitant volume, 4D flow as reference method | Highly |
| Roes et al., 2009 | Pilot | 22 HV, 29 IC | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Westenberg et al., 2008 | Retrospective pilot | 10 HV, 20 MR/TR | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Westenberg et al., 2005 | Pilot | 10 HV, 10 MR | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Westenberg et al., 2004 | Pilot | 10 HV | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Aortic valve | ||||
| Chelu et al., 2016 | Prospective diagnostic | 54 AR | Visual grading of AR | Highly |
| Garcia et al., 2014 | Retrospective pilot | 10 HV, 40 AS | Jet shear layer detection method | Highly |
| Ewe et al., 2013 | Retrospective diagnostic | 32 AR | Regurgitant Volume with 4D flow as reference method | Highly |
| Roes et al., 2009 | Pilot | 22 HV, 29 IC | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Tricuspid valve | ||||
| Roes et al., 2009 | Pilot | 22 HV, 29 IC | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Westenberg et al., 2008 | Retrospective pilot | 10 HV, 20 MR/TR | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Pulmonary valve | ||||
| Roes et al., 2009 | Pilot | 22 HV, 29 IC | Valve flow quantification using retrospective valve tracking | Highly |
| Right atrium | ||||
| Callaghan et al., 2016 | Prospective pilot | 12 HV | Particle tracing and kinetic energy | Highly |
| Markl et al., 2016 | Retrospective mechanistic | 8 HV, 62 AF | Velocity profile | Highly |
| Steding-Ehrenborg et al., 2015 | Retrospective mechanistic | 14 HV, 14 athletes | KE | Highly |
| Arvidsson et al., 2013 | Mechanistic | 15 HV | KE | Highly |
| Right ventricle | ||||
| Han et al., 2015 | Pilot | 9 HV, 10 PAH | KE | Less |
| Steding-Ehrenborg et al., 2015 | Retrospective mechanistic | 14 HV, 14 athletes | KE | Highly |
| Carlsson et al., 2012 | Pilot | 9 HV | KE | Potentially |
| Fredriksson et al., 2011 | Mechanistic | 10 HV | Pathline visualisation and KE | Potentially |
Summary of the 44 included studies. Of these, 35 address the left heart, 12 for the heart valves and 8 for the right heart. Clinical applicability has been divided into the following groups based on the score achieved using the modified CASP tool: ‘highly’ for 67–100%, ‘potentially’ for 34–67% and ‘less’ for 0–33%. Studies that are relevant to more than one intra-cardiac structure are denoted by an asterisk (*). HV = healthy volunteers, AF = atrial fibrillation, OHD = organic heart disease, MR = mitral regurgitation, DCM = dilated cardiomyopathy, pEF = preserved ejection fraction, rEF = reduced ejection fraction, IHD = ischaemic heart disease, HCM = hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, HF = heart failure, DD = diastolic dysfunction, ALVA = apical left ventricular aneurysm. IC = ischaemic cardiomyopathy, TR = tricuspid regurgitation, AR = aortic regurgitation, AS = aortic stenosis. PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Fig. 34D flow streamline visualisation and retrospective valve tracking quantification. Panels A and B = Four-dimensional mitral inflow in a patient with mitral regurgitation. Panel A shows the mitral regurgitation (yellow arrow) as well as tricuspid regurgitation (red arrow). Panel B = Mitral valve inflow quantification using retrospective valve-tracking. Panels C and D = Four-dimensional aortic flow in a patient with aortic root dilatation. Panel C shows pathological vortex formation in the ascending aorta (red arrow) as well as aortic regurgitation (yellow arrow). Panel D = Aortic valve flow quantification using retrospective valve-tracking.