4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Review

Alex J. Barker¹  Michael Markl²  Julia Geiger³  Daniel Giese⁴  Michael D. Hope⁵  Christopher J. Francios⁶  Oliver Wieben⁷  Petter Dyverfeldt⁸  Tino Ebbers⁸  Carl-Johan Carlhäll⁹  Ann F. Bolger^1,10  Malenka Bissell^1,11  Stefan Neubauer^1,11  Saul Myerson^1,11  Sebastian Kozerke^1,12  Alex Frydrychowicz^1,13  Philip J. Kilner^1,14 

[1] Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA;Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA;Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA;Department of Radiology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany;Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States;Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA;Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA;Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA;Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Department of Clinical Physiology, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States;Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, Oxford, UK;Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Klinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany;NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK;

关键词: 4D Flow CMR;    4D Flow MRI;    Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging;    MR flow imaging;    Hemodynamics;    Flow visualization;    Flow quantification;    Recommendations;    Clinical;    Cardiovascular;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12968-015-0174-5

 received in 2015-03-24, accepted in 2015-07-17,  发布年份 2015

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

Pulsatile blood flow through the cavities of the heart and great vessels is time-varying and multidirectional. Access to all regions, phases and directions of cardiovascular flows has formerly been limited. Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has enabled more comprehensive access to such flows, with typical spatial resolution of 1.5×1.5×1.5 – 3×3×3 mm3, typical temporal resolution of 30–40 ms, and acquisition times in the order of 5 to 25 min. This consensus paper is the work of physicists, physicians and biomedical engineers, active in the development and implementation of 4D Flow CMR, who have repeatedly met to share experience and ideas. The paper aims to assist understanding of acquisition and analysis methods, and their potential clinical applications with a focus on the heart and greater vessels. We describe that 4D Flow CMR can be clinically advantageous because placement of a single acquisition volume is straightforward and enables flow through any plane across it to be calculated retrospectively and with good accuracy. We also specify research and development goals that have yet to be satisfactorily achieved. Derived flow parameters, generally needing further development or validation for clinical use, include measurements of wall shear stress, pressure difference, turbulent kinetic energy, and intracardiac flow components. The dependence of measurement accuracy on acquisition parameters is considered, as are the uses of different visualization strategies for appropriate representation of time-varying multidirectional flow fields. Finally, we offer suggestions for more consistent, user-friendly implementation of 4D Flow CMR acquisition and data handling with a view to multicenter studies and more widespread adoption of the approach in routine clinical investigations.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Dyverfeldt et al. 2015