Mawson D M, Shore A C
Department of Vascular Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter, UK.
J Med Eng Technol. 1998 Mar-Apr;22(2):53-63. doi: 10.3109/03091909809010000.
CapiFlow (CF), a new fully computerized system for the measurement of capillary blood velocity (CBV) was compared to manual frame by frame analysis (a) in a model system, and (b) in finger nailfold capillaries recorded on video tape. In the model the overall agreement between the two methods was very good (figure 1), with no significant differences being noted between the two sets of results and the calculated velocities. However, when comparing frame by frame and CapiFlow directly, CapiFlow read on average 4.50 +/- 5.21% higher than frame by frame analysis (figure 2). The in vivo results obtained by the two methods showed similar dynamic changes although some differences between the overall mean CBVs were noted (capillary 1, manual 0.13 +/- 0.59 mm s-1 versus CF 0.12 +/- 0.02 mm s-1, (mean +/- SD), p = 0.354; capillary 2, manual 0.66 +/- 0.23 mm s-1 versus CF 0.47 +/- 0.09 mm s-1, p < 0.001; capillary 3, manual 2.53 +/- 0.73 mm s-1 versus CF 2.35 +/- 0.34 mm s-1, p = 0.062). Further analyses established the optimum settings of delta limit and cross correlation. Investigations into the effects of changes in window size, window distance or video settings on CBV results obtained by CapiFlow, indicated that only settings radically different from the optimum had a significant effect on the results obtained.
CapiFlow（CF）是一种用于测量毛细血管血流速度（CBV）的全新全计算机化系统，在以下两种情况下与手动逐帧分析进行了比较：（a）在模型系统中；（b）在录像带上记录的手指甲襞毛细血管中。在模型中，两种方法的总体一致性非常好（图1），两组结果和计算出的速度之间没有显著差异。然而，直接比较逐帧分析和CapiFlow时，CapiFlow读取的结果平均比逐帧分析高4.50±5.21%（图2）。两种方法获得的体内结果显示出相似的动态变化，尽管总体平均CBV之间存在一些差异（毛细血管1，手动测量为0.13±0.59毫米/秒，而CF为0.12±0.02毫米/秒，（平均值±标准差），p = 0.354；毛细血管2，手动测量为0.66±0.23毫米/秒，而CF为0.47±0.09毫米/秒，p < 0.001；毛细血管3，手动测量为2.53±0.73毫米/秒，而CF为2.35±0.34毫米/秒，p = 0.062）。进一步分析确定了增量极限和互相关的最佳设置。对窗口大小、窗口距离或视频设置的变化对通过CapiFlow获得的CBV结果的影响进行的研究表明，只有与最佳设置有很大差异的设置才会对获得的结果产生显著影响。
