4.5 Review

4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12968-023-00942-z

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; Heart disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This consensus paper provides an updated overview of the importance of four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D Flow CMR) in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. It discusses sequence options, imaging considerations, acquisition parameters, post-processing workflows, and integration into clinical practice. The paper also defines quality assurance and validation standards for clinical centers, addresses challenges in the research setting, and includes a checklist for publication standards.
Hemodynamic assessment is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. Four-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance flow imaging (4D Flow CMR) allows comprehensive and accurate assessment of flow in a single acquisition. This consensus paper is an update from the 2015 '4D Flow CMR Consensus Statement'. We elaborate on 4D Flow CMR sequence options and imaging considerations. The document aims to assist centers starting out with 4D Flow CMR of the heart and great vessels with advice on acquisition parameters, post-processing workflows and integration into clinical practice. Furthermore, we define minimum quality assurance and validation standards for clinical centers. We also address the challenges faced in quality assurance and validation in the research setting. We also include a checklist for recommended publication standards, specifically for 4D Flow CMR. Finally, we discuss the current limitations and the future of 4D Flow CMR. This updated consensus paper will further facilitate widespread adoption of 4D Flow CMR in the clinical workflow across the globe and aid consistently high-quality publication standards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据