PICC与锁骨下静脉置管的比较研究  

Comparative Study Between Puncturing Indwelling Cubital Catheterization and Subclavian Venous Catheterization

作　　者：汪素萍[1] 钟小青[1] 游晓燕[1] 潘年妙[1] 黄年娇[1] 黄萍[1] 何青竹[1] 

机构地区：[1]百色人民医院肿瘤科,广西百色533000

出　　处：《护理学杂志》2005年第8期15-17,共3页

基　　金：广西百色地区科学研究与技术开发项目(百地科字[2002]11)

摘　　要：目的比较经肘部外周静脉穿剌中心静脉置管(PICC)与锁骨下静脉穿剌中心静脉置管的利弊。方法将180例肿瘤患者随机分为观察组(88例)和对照组(92例)。观察组采用PICC置管,对照组采用锁骨下静脉置管,观察两组穿剌时间、穿剌成功率、穿刺异常及不良反应发生率,以及导管留置时间等。结果观察组较对照组平均操作时间短(P<0.01);总穿剌成功率高(P<0.01);不良反应发生率低(P<0.05),其中观察组静脉炎发生率为11.36%,对照组为零,两组比较,P<0.01,差异有显著性意义;两组导管留置时间比较,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论PICC置管用于输液优于锁骨下静脉置管,而锁骨下静脉置管用于化疗优于PICC置管。Objective To study the advantages and disadvantages of puncturing indwelling cubital Catheterization and subclavian venous catheterization in patients with tumor. Methods One hundred and eighty patients were randomly divided into an PICC group (88 cases) and a control group (92 cases). The puncturing indwelling cubital cathete-rization (PICC) was used in the PICC group and the subclavian venous catheterition in the control group. The puncturing time, the rate of success, the dwelling time of catheter and rate of adverse reactions were observed in the two groups. Results The puncturing time were shorter, the rate of success were higher and the rate of adverse reactions lower in the PICC group (P< 0.01 , P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively). The incidence of phlebitis was 11.36% in the PICC group, and it was zero in the control group (P<0.01). There was no difference in the puncturing time between the two groups (P> 0.05 ). Conclusion PICC was better than subclavian catheterization for fluid infusion, but the latter was better than the former for chemotherapy.

关 键 词：锁骨下静脉置管 不良反应发生率 PICC置管 中心静脉置管 导管留置时间 锁骨下静脉穿刺 穿刺成功率 外周静脉穿刺 对照组 观察组 肿瘤患者 操作时间 显著性 静脉炎 

分 类 号：R472.9[医药卫生—护理学] R725.631[医药卫生—临床医学]