email    contact


ラブテック ホルターの解析機能として

Heart Rate Variability ,Turbulence、3D可変表示、
Vector Cardiolography,Spectral Analysis 等が装備されています

Atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia lasting for more than 30 seconds. Its prevalence in the population increases with age, and it is estimated to affect over 4 percent of the population above the age of 60. Patients with atrial fibrillation are at an increased risk of ischemic stroke and other thromboembolic events.

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is used to verify the presence of AF and is necessary to make the diagnosis. Holter monitoring or event recorders are used to identify the arrhythmia if it is intermittent and not captured on routine electrocardiography and assess overall ventricular response rates. Longer monitoring terms using external or implantable recorders, multiple daily ECG checks for a prolonged period and continuous telemetry are the leading diagnostic ECG methods to identify subclinical cases of intermittent (paroxysmal) AF.

The electrocardiogram in a patient with AF has the following main characteristics:

1.       Absence of discrete P waves

2.       Fibrillatory or f waves are present at a rate that is generally between 350 and 600 beats/minute; the f waves vary in amplitude, morphology, and intervals

3.       The RR intervals follow no repetitive pattern; they have been labelled as “irregularly irregular.”

4.       The QRS complexes are narrow unless AV conduction is abnormal because of other condition

Labtech Cardiospy® uses the first and third characteristics to identify sections of atrial fibrillation on Holter ECG records. An ECG section is only marked as atrial fibrillation if the RR intervals are irregularly irregular and there are no discrete P-waves at predefined locations before QRS complexes. Fibrillatory f waves are often hard to ascertain on Holter ECG records, therefore they are not used as a requirement for the detection of AF. Manual corrections can easily be done after the automatic analysis if necessary, but our internal tests show that the accuracy of the automatic AF detection exceeds 90%.

   The red strip marks the automatically detected AF sections

(2)    The NN intervals plot helps the user to assess the irregularity                           a) AF section          b) normal section

(3)    ECG strip with markers for atrial fibrillation

ワイヤレス12誘導心電計(メタボリック指標付き) で、世界へ文献を発信されませんか

2007年4月厚生労働省から認可された、最新のブルーツース無線の 方法で
全く新しく開発された心電計です。 安静時、歩行、エアロビクス、マスターステップ、エルゴメータ、トレッドミル、
などの動作中に、一貫して、同じ患者或いは健常人の心電図を一連に リアルタイム、同時に、監視、記憶、
記録、転送ができます。 不整脈、冠疾患など心の臓疾患、高血圧、糖尿病、内分泌、透析、
自律神経疾患等の病態解析、薬効効果、運動療法、リハビリ等の 医学文献の解析方法としてご提案申し上げます。
更に、当心電計からは、RR間隔、心電図波形のディジタル化データが 得られますので、自律神経や、
関連周波数解析などが可能です。 当心電計は、不整脈解析の心電計、負荷試験の心電計、リアルタイム解析の 心電計、
連続波形モニターの心電計、遠隔同時表示の心電計、 心電図データマネイジメント、等の機能を有します。



http://www.din.or.jp/~meditekn/medi_hp/labtechholter/ ラブテックパソコンホルタのご紹介
ラブテック社製品としてのパソコン式の利用価値 等を掲載しております

地方販売代理店募集 診療報酬有


三分間で測定 検証対象の中心血圧測定

欧州米国特許有 日本特許有 携帯電話及びインターネット利用、


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


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.

ヤレス 非観血血圧式 連続監視 血圧測定 (研究用)



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.




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.


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.


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.