メディカルテクニカ

email    contact
to home いらっしゃいませ
交感神経、副交感神経
などのデータを
各種グラフで表示
します。

ソフトウエアは
マットラブ( Matlab)
を用います。
自律神経の計測にはいろいろな
方法が開発されてきたが

ここに極めて正確な
方法をご提案する。

それは、一番安定して得られる
心電図から演算する方法で

12誘導パソコン心電計
からの波形のサンプリングを
バイナリデータで提供し、
そのデータから各種の
自律神経パラメータを
演算表示する。
12誘導パソコン心電計
非観血血圧付きパソコンホルタ


同上の基本仕様の
解析例


マットラブソフトウエアを
用いた解析例


専門的方法による例
マットラブ応用、神経解析ソフトウエアの gTec社カタログの一部です。

実際解析例をその次に掲載しました。
実際の試験データ解析例

ラブテック社製 12誘導ブルーツース無線の心電計 の心電図RR間隔より

 gTec社製 の ECG Tool box で解析しました。

さる研究室で、15人を対象に、自律神経反応を測定した結果です。


その内の四人の内の あるテストデータサンプルです。

Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika
Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika
Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika
Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika Medical Teknika
世界最先端の分析ソフトウエア
グーガーテクノロジ社
のソフトウエア
12誘導心電計や。ストレス心電計やホルタ心電計からの
心電図波形のサンプリング値が
バイナリファイルで外部に提供されています

PCの機能が向上し、Descrete Wavelet 手法が、お求めやすい低価格で

実現し、心房のP波を自動検出できるようになりました、

心房細動の自動解析能をお試し賜われれば幸いです


Labtech社は、当社独自の方法による

P波自動検出と心房細動自動解析手法

T Wave Alternans 解析手法を開発し、当社ホルターに搭載。


VectraCardiology,Heart Rate Variability
TWA オルタナンス,Turbulence、
3D可変表示、Spectral Analysis,等が装備


ケアテイカ

非観血相対血圧・連続・ポータブル・ウエアラブル・一拍毎解析出力付き

httpswww.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpmcarticlesPMC5361833

 

BMC Anesthesiol. 2017; 17: 48.

Published online 2017 Mar 21. doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0337-z

PMCID: PMC5361833

PMID: 28327093

Continuous Non-invasive finger cuff CareTaker® comparable to invasive intra-arterial pressure in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery

Irwin Gratz,1 Edward Deal,1 Francis Spitz,1 Martin Baruch,2 I. Elaine Allen,3 Julia E. Seaman,4 Erin Pukenas,1 and Smith Jean1

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

 

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and analysed for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

 

Abstract

Background

Despite increased interest in non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring, the majority of commercially available technologies have failed to satisfy the limits established for the validation of automatic arterial pressure monitoring by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). According to the ANSI/AAMI/ISO 81060–2:2013 standards, the group-average accuracy and precision are defined as acceptable if bias is not greater than 5 mmHg and standard deviation is not greater than 8 mmHg. In this study, these standards are used to evaluate the CareTaker® (CT) device, a device measuring continuous non-invasive blood pressure via a pulse contour algorithm called Pulse Decomposition Analysis.

Methods

A convenience sample of 24 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were consented to participate in this IRB approved pilot study. Each patient was monitored with a radial arterial catheter and CT using a finger cuff applied to the contralateral thumb. Hemodynamic variables were measured and analyzed from both devices for the first thirty minutes of the surgical procedure including the induction of anesthesia. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic and diastolic blood pressures continuously collected from the arterial catheter and CT were compared. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between arterial catheter and CT blood pressure measurements, a Bland-Altman analysis, and polar and 4Q plots were created.

Results

The correlation of systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures were 0.92, 0.86, 0.91, respectively (p<0.0001 for all the comparisons). The Bland-Altman comparison yielded a bias (as measured by overall mean difference) of −0.57, −2.52, 1.01 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively with a standard deviation of 7.34, 6.47, 5.33 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The polar plot indicates little bias between the two methods (90%/95% CI at 31.5°/52°, respectively, overall bias=1.5°) with only a small percentage of points outside these lines. The 4Q plot indicates good concordance and no bias between the methods.

Conclusions

In this study, blood pressure measured using the non-invasive CT device was shown to correlate well with the arterial catheter measurements. Larger studies are needed to confirm these results in more varied settings. Most patients exhibited very good agreement between methods. Results were well within the limits established for the validation of automatic arterial pressure monitoring by the AAMI.

Keywords: Non-Invasive, CareTaker, Central blood pressure, Finger cuff, Intra-Arterial pressure


Tensiomed 社 Arteriograph 24 血管脈波検査装置

ご注意:中心血圧と関連機能は検証が必要です、

Central blood pressure: current evidence

and clinical importance

Carmel M. McEniery1*, John R. Cockcroft2, Mary J. Roman3,

Stanley S. Franklin4, and Ian B.Wilkinson1

1Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital, Box 110, Cambridge CB22QQ, UK; 2Department of Cardiology,Wales Heart Research Institute, Cardiff

CF14 4XN, UK; 3Division of Cardiology,Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10021, USA; and 4University of California, UCI School of Medicine, Irvine, CA 92697-4101, USA

Received 29 April 2013; revised 27 November 2013; accepted 17 December 2013; online publish-ahead-of-print 23 January 2014

and central pressure. Therefore, basing treatment decisions on central, rather than brachial pressure, is likely to have important implications

for the future diagnosis and management of hypertension. Such a paradigm shift will, however, require further, direct evidence that selectively

targeting central pressure, brings added benefit, over and above that already provided by brachial artery pressure.

Central pressure Blood pressure Anti-hypertensive treatment Cardiovascular risk

Introduction

The brachial cuff sphygmomanometer was introduced into medical

practice well over 100 years ago, enabling the routine, non-invasive,

measurement of arterial blood pressure. Life insurance companies

were among the first to capitalize on the information provided by

cuff sphygmomanometry, by observing that blood pressure in

largely asymptomatic individuals relates to future cardiovascular

riskobservations that are nowsupported by a wealth of epidemiological

data.1 The most recent Global Burden of Disease report2

identified hypertension as the leading cause of death and disability

worldwide. Moreover, data from over 50 years of randomized controlled

trials clearly demonstrate that lowering brachial pressure,

in hypertensive individuals, substantially reduces cardiovascular

events.1,3 For these reasons, measurement of brachial blood pressure

has become embedded in routine clinical assessment throughout the

developed world, and is one of the most widely accepted surrogate

measures for regulatory bodies.

The major driving force for the continued use of brachial blood

pressure has been its ease of measurement, and the wide variety of

devices available for clinical use. However, we have known for over

half a century that brachial pressure is a poor surrogate for aortic

pressure, which is invariably lower than corresponding brachial

values. Recent evidence suggests that central pressure is also more

strongly related to future cardiovascular events4 7 than brachial

pressure, and responds differently to certain drugs.8,9 Appreciating

this provides an ideal framework for understanding the much publicized

inferiority of atenolol and some other beta-blockers,10 compared

with other drug classes, in the management of essential

hypertension. Although central pressure can now be assessed noninvasively

with the same ease as brachial pressure, clinicians are unlikely

to discard the brachial cuff sphygmomanometer without

robust evidence that cardiovascular risk stratification, and monitoring

response to therapy, are better when based on central rather

than peripheral pressure. Central pressure assessment and accuracy

will also have to be standardized, as it has been for brachial pressure

assessment with oscillometric devices. This review will discuss our

current understanding about central pressure and the evidence

required to bring blood pressure measurement, and cardiovascular

risk assessment into the modern era.

Physiological concepts

Arterial pressure varies continuously over the cardiac cycle, but in

clinical practice only systolic and diastolic pressures are routinely

reported. These are invariably measured in the brachial artery

using cuff sphygmomanometrya practice that has changed little

over the last century. However, the shape of the pressure waveform

* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 1223 336806, Fax: +44 1223 216893, Email: cmm41@cam.ac.uk

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. &The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

European Heart Journal (2014) 35, 17191725 doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht565

 

Pressure measured with a cuff and sphygmomanometer in the brachial artery is accepted as an important predictor of future cardiovascular risk.However, systolic pressure varies throughout the arterial tree, such that aortic (central) systolic pressure is actually lower than corresponding brachial values, although this difference is highly variable between individuals. Emerging evidence now suggests that central pressure is better related to future cardiovascular events than is brachial pressure. Moreover, anti-hypertensive drugs can exert differential effects on brachial and central pressure. Therefore, basing treatment decisions on central, rather than brachial pressure, is likely to have important implications for the future diagnosis and management of hypertension. Such a paradigm shift will, however, require further, direct evidence that selectively targeting central pressure, brings added benefit, over and above that already provided by brachial artery pressure.As discussed earlier, a full synthesis of the available evidence concerning

central pressure and the risk of future cardiovascular events is now required. However, it will also be necessary to determine the clinical relevance of differences between brachial and central pressure

for the individual patient, especially given the relatively high correlation between the two. Emerging data support the prognostic superiority of both 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

(ABPM)79 81 andhomemonitoring81 in comparison with office measurements. Interestingly, a recent study82 demonstrated that 24-h ambulatory cuff pressures were comparable with office central pressure

measurements in the prediction of risk, although the significance of this study awaits confirmation.83 As yet, there are no data comparing the predictive value ofhomemonitoring vs. central pressure in the

prediction of risk. Ultimately, it will be necessary to evaluate the prognostic value of 24-h ambulatory central pressure.With the recent development of ambulatory central pressure systems,84,85 this is now

possible and it may be reasonable to hypothesize that 24-h central, rather than brachial ABPM would be superior in terms of risk prediction.