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.

Background—: Ascending aortic dilation is important in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease, with increased risk of aortic dissection. We used cardiovascular MR to understand the pathophysiology better by examining the links between 3-dimensional flow abnormalities, aortic function, and aortic dilation. Methods and Results—: A total of 142 subjects underwent cardiovascular MR (mean age, 40 years; 95 with BAV, 47 healthy volunteers). Patients with BAV had predominantly abnormal right-handed helical flow in the ascending aorta, larger ascending aortas (18.3±3.3 versus 15.2±2.2 mm/m ² ; P <0.001), and higher rotational (helical) flow (31.7±15.8 versus 2.9±3.9 mm ² /s; P <0.001), systolic flow angle (23.1°±12.5° versus 7.0°±4.6°; P <0.001), and systolic wall shear stress (0.85±0.28 versus 0.59±0.17 N/m ² ; P <0.001) compared with healthy volunteers. BAV with right-handed flow and right-non coronary cusp fusion (n=31) showed more severe flow abnormalities (rotational flow, 38.5±16.5 versus 27.8±12.4 mm ² /s; P <0.001; systolic flow angle, 29.4°±10.9° versus 19.4°±11.4°; P <0.001; in-plane wall shear stress, 0.64±0.23 versus 0.47±0.22 N/m ² ; P <0.001) and larger aortas (19.5±3.4 versus 17.5±3.1 mm/m ² ; P <0.05) than right–left cusp fusion (n=55). Patients with BAV with normal flow patterns had similar aortic dimensions and wall shear stress to healthy volunteers and younger patients with BAV showed abnormal flow patterns but no aortic dilation, both further supporting the importance of flow pattern in the pathogenesis of aortic dilation. Aortic function measures (distensibility, aortic strain, and pulse wave velocity) were similar across all groups. Conclusions—: Flow abnormalities may be a major contributor to aortic dilation in BAV. Fusion type affects the severity of flow abnormalities and may allow better risk prediction and selection of patients for earlier surgical intervention.

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.

This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.

Purpose: Changes in aortic geometry or presence of aortic valve (AoV) disease can result in substantially altered aortic hemodynamics. Dilatation of the ascending aorta or AoV abnormalities can result in an increase in helical flow.Methods: 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging was used to test the feasibility of quantitative helicity analysis using equidistantly distributed 2D planes along the entire aorta. The evaluation of the method included three parts: (1) the quantification of helicity in 12 healthy subjects, (2) an evaluation of observer variability and test–retest reliability, and (3) the quantification of helical flow in 16 patients with congenitally altered bicuspid AoVs.Results: Helicity quantification in healthy subjects revealed consistent directions of flow rotation along the entire aorta with high clockwise helicity in the aortic arch and an opposite rotation sense in the ascending and descending aorta. The results demonstrated good scan–rescan and inter‐ and intraobserver agreement of the helicity parameters. Helicity quantification in patients revealed a significant increase in absolute peak relative helicity during systole and a considerably greater heterogeneous distribution of mean helicity in the aorta.Conclusion: The method has the potential to serve as a reference distribution for comparisons of helical flow between healthy subjects and patients or between different patient groups. Magn Reson Med 71:1542–1553, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.