Lilia M Sierra-Galan1, Christopher J François2. 1. American British Cowdray Medical Center, 154 Carlos Graef Fernandez Ave. Room 207. Tlaxala, Cuajimalpa, 05300, Mexico City, Mexico. lilisierra@wdevel.net. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Four-dimensional (4D)-Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is three-dimensional, time-resolved, three-directional velocity-encoded magnetic resonance that provides flow velocity data within a volumetric region across the cardiac cycle (CC). The goals of this paper are to review the current clinical applications of this technique; provide an overview of the general physics; discuss key points from the expert consensus document; and present recent advances in the field. The advantages and disadvantages of 4D-Flow CMR in comparison with the standard and gold standard methods are summarized. RECENT FINDINGS: 4D-Flow CMR offers unique insights into cardiac and circulatory physiology with an ability to quantify advanced hemodynamic parameters in a variety of pathologic entities including aortic and pulmonary artery diseases, valvular heart disease, complex congenital heart disease, and extra-thoracic cardiovascular diseases. Recent large cohort studies highlight how it provides information that has clinical impact beyond a better understanding of the disease and that will permit better and more timely management and prognosis. 4D-Flow CMR provides unique qualitative and quantitative flow dynamics information and its impact on cardiac chambers, vessel walls, and myocardium. As scan acquisition and post-processing of 4D-Flow CMR become faster and simpler, the investigational and clinical opportunities will expand dramatically.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Four-dimensional (4D)-Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is three-dimensional, time-resolved, three-directional velocity-encoded magnetic resonance that provides flow velocity data within a volumetric region across the cardiac cycle (CC). The goals of this paper are to review the current clinical applications of this technique; provide an overview of the general physics; discuss key points from the expert consensus document; and present recent advances in the field. The advantages and disadvantages of 4D-Flow CMR in comparison with the standard and gold standard methods are summarized. RECENT FINDINGS: 4D-Flow CMR offers unique insights into cardiac and circulatory physiology with an ability to quantify advanced hemodynamic parameters in a variety of pathologic entities including aortic and pulmonary artery diseases, valvular heart disease, complex congenital heart disease, and extra-thoracic cardiovascular diseases. Recent large cohort studies highlight how it provides information that has clinical impact beyond a better understanding of the disease and that will permit better and more timely management and prognosis. 4D-Flow CMR provides unique qualitative and quantitative flow dynamics information and its impact on cardiac chambers, vessel walls, and myocardium. As scan acquisition and post-processing of 4D-Flow CMR become faster and simpler, the investigational and clinical opportunities will expand dramatically.
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Alexander Berger; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Maximilian F Russe; Jelena Bock; Andreas Harloff; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Binter; Verena Knobloch; Robert Manka; Andreas Sigfridsson; Sebastian Kozerke Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kate Hanneman; Milani Sivagnanam; Elsie T Nguyen; Rachel Wald; Andreas Greiser; Andrew M Crean; Sebastian Ley; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Susanne Schnell; Pegah Entezari; Riti J Mahadewia; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; Jeremy D Collins; James Carr; Michael Markl Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Ann F Bolger; Einar Heiberg; Matts Karlsson; Lars Wigström; Jan Engvall; Andreas Sigfridsson; Tino Ebbers; John-Peder Escobar Kvitting; Carl Johan Carlhäll; Bengt Wranne Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Michael D Hope; Derk D Purcell; Cornelius von Morze; Daniel B Vigneron; Marcus T Alley; William P Dillon Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Saul Crandon; Jos J M Westenberg; Peter P Swoboda; Graham J Fent; James R J Foley; Pei G Chew; Louise A E Brown; Christopher Saunderson; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; John P Greenwood; Rob J van der Geest; Erica Dall'Armellina; Sven Plein; Pankaj Garg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lilia M Sierra-Galan; Mona Bhatia; Angel Leovigildo Alberto-Delgado; Javier Madrazo-Shiordia; Carlos Salcido; Bernardo Santoyo; Eduardo Martinez; Maria Elena Soto Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-07-13
Authors: Michael A Biersmith; Matthew S Tong; Avirup Guha; Orlando P Simonetti; Daniel Addison Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.501