Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
AIM: Two-dimensional phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (2D flow MRI) and its multidimensional alternatives, 4D and 5D flow MRI, measure blood flow in the heart and great vessels. While 2D flow MRI is the standard technique, it has limitations regarding need for precise image plane prescribing and long scan time. In contrast, 4D and 5D flow MRI acquire 3D volumes, enabling retrospective assessment of all vessels. This review evaluates these three techniques for quantification of blood flow of the aortic and pulmonary valves in congenital heart disease. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2024 using the PUBMED database, including articles comparing 2D, 4D, and 5D flow MRI. RESULTS: Fifteen articles comparing 2D and 4D, one comparing 2D and 5D and three articles comparing 4D and 5D flow MRI were included. No study compared all three techniques. 2D, 4D and 5D flow MRI demonstrated a good agreement for flow quantification. 4D flow MRI, however, tends to present a better accuracy and internal consistency than 2D flow MRI for determination of peak velocities and flow in stenotic lesions, particularly when comparing velocities to echocardiography. 4D and 5D flow MRI are associated with shorter scan times than 2D flow MRI. CONCLUSIONS: 4D and 5D flow MRI appear to offer promising alternatives to 2D flow MRI with the advantage of reduced scan times. Larger and prospective studies including echocardiography are needed to evaluate the potential of 4D and 5D to replace 2D flow MRI for flow quantification and peak velocity determination.
Fässler et al. (Fri,) studied this question.