世界の小児専門病院心臓センターで採用され、かつ、日々改定が続けられてすでに15年に及び、世界標準の心カテ及び心臓手術の教科書です。 #メディカルテクニカ #Labtech_Holter #生体情報 #Heart_vest_gTec #Pedcath8 #Mennen_Medical #Vectorcardiography_Labtech_Holter #VitalStream_Caretaker_Medical #Pedcath8_Mennen_Medical #wvelet_algorithm #Piston_Medical_COanalysi
#wavelet_Labtech12leadsECG_decomposition_CaretakerMedical #SCD_EWS_proposals
モバイル・スマホ・タブレット・パソコンなどに、12誘導心電図や血行動態などをオンライン・リアルタイムで表示・遠隔表示
2014年5月26日月曜日
Arterial Stiffness
Invasive validation of a new oscillometric device
(Arteriograph) for measuring augmentation index, central
blood pressure and aortic pulse wave velocity
Iva´n G. Horva´ tha, A´ da´m Ne´metha, Zso´ fia Lenkeya, Nicola Alessandrib,
Fabrizio Tufanob, Pa´ l Kisa, Bala´ zs Gasznera and Attila Czira´ kia
Background The importance of measuring aortic pulse
wave velocity (PWVao), aortic augmentation index (Aix) and
central systolic blood pressure (SBPao) has been shown
under different clinical conditions; however, information on
these parameters is hard to obtain. The aim of this study
was to evaluate the accuracy of a new, easily applicable
oscillometric device (Arteriograph), determining these
parameters simultaneously, against invasive
measurements.
Methods Aortic Aix, SBPao and PWVao were measured
invasively during cardiac catheterization in 16, 55 and
22 cases, respectively, and compared with the values
measured by the Arteriograph.
Results We found strong correlation between the invasively
measured aortic Aix and the oscillometrically measured
brachial Aix on either beat-to-beat or mean value per patient
basis (rU0.9, P<0.001; rU0.94, P<0.001), which allowed
the noninvasive calculation of the aortic Aix without using
generalized transfer function. Similarly strong correlation
(rU0.95, P<0.001) was found between the invasively
measured and the noninvasively calculated central SBPao;
furthermore, the BHS assessment of the paired differences
fulfilled the ‘B’ grading. The PWVao values measured
invasively and by Arteriograph were 9.41W1.8 m/s and
9.46W1.8 m/s, respectively (meanWSD); furthermore, the
Pearson’s correlation was 0.91 (P<0.001). The limits of