Four‐dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows multidirectional quantification of blood flow in the heart and great vessels. Comparability of the technique to the current reference standards of flow assessment—two‐dimensional (2D) flow MRI and Doppler echocardiography—varies in the literature. Image acquisition parameters likely impact upon the accuracy and reproducibility of 4D flow MRI. We therefore sought to review the current literature on 4D flow MRI in the heart and great vessels, in comparison to 2D flow MRI, Doppler echocardiography, and invasive catheterization. Using a predefined search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the databases EMBASE and Medline were searched in January 2021 for peer‐reviewed research articles comparing cardiac 4D flow MRI to 2D flow MRI, Doppler echocardiography and/or invasive catheterization. The data from all relevant articles were assimilated and analyzed using Mann–Whitney U and chi χ2 test. Forty‐four manuscripts met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The review showed agreement of 4D flow MRI to the reference standard methods of flow assessment, particular in the measurement of peak velocity and stroke volume in 55% of manuscripts. The use of valve tracking significantly improves agreement between 4D flow MRI and the reference modalities (79% matching with the use of valve tracking vs. 50% without, P = 0.04). This review highlights that the impact of acquisition parameters on 4D flow MRI accuracy is multifactorial. It is therefore important that each center conducts its own quality assurance prior to using 4D flow MRI for clinical decision‐making. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

No abstract