Prerequisites for Clinical Implementation of Whole-Heart 4D-Flow MRI: A Delphi Analysis.
Joost van SchuppenAnnelies E van der HulstJ Michiel den HarderLukas M GottwaldRaschel D van LuijkJosien C van den NoortJules L NelissenCasper F CoerkampS Matthijs BoekholdtPaul F C GrootAart NederveenPim van OoijR Nils Plankennull nullPublished in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI (2024)
Whole-heart 4D-flow MRI is a valuable tool for advanced visualization and quantification of blood flow in cardiovascular imaging. Despite advantages over 2D-phase-contrast flow, clinical implementation remains only partially exploited due to many hurdles in all steps, from image acquisition, reconstruction, postprocessing and analysis, clinical embedment, reporting, legislation, and regulation to data storage. The intent of this manuscript was 1) to evaluate the extent of clinical implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI, 2) to identify hurdles hampering clinical implementation, and 3) to reach consensus on requirements for clinical implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI. This study is based on Delphi analysis. This study involves a panel of 18 experts in the field on whole-heart 4D-flow MRI. The experience with and opinions of experts (mean 13 years of experience, interquartile range 6) in the field were aggregated. This study showed that among experts in the cardiovascular field, whole-heart 4D-flow MRI is currently used for both clinical and research purposes. Overall, the panelists agreed that major hurdles currently hamper implementation and utilization. The sequence-specific hurdles identified were long scan time and lack of standardization. Further hurdles included cumbersome and time-consuming segmentation and postprocessing. The study concludes that implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI in clinical routine is feasible, but the implementation process is complex and requires a dedicated, multidisciplinary team. A predefined plan, including risk assessment and technique validation, is essential. The reported consensus statements may guide further tool development and facilitate broader implementation and clinical use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.