PICC导管三种封管方法的临床比较  

Compare the Clinical Effect of Three Methods Sealing PICC

作　　者：涂伟妹[1] 王丽[1] 林雪琴[1] 胡文英[1] 殷相保[1] 

机构地区：[1]南昌大学第二附属医院肝胆外科,南昌330006

出　　处：《实用临床医学（江西）》2009年第12期87-88,共2页Practical Clinical Medicine

摘　　要：目的对比经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)的3种封管方法的临床效果。方法将90例行PICC置管术患者随机分为3组,A组(30例)直接采用可来福正压接头封管,B组(30例)采用正压接头加生理盐水脉冲式封管,C组(30例)采用可来福正压接头加稀释肝素钠盐水封管。比较3组患者PICC堵管和静脉炎的发生率。结果导管堵管发生率:A组(30.0%)分别与B组(3.3%)、C组(0.0%)比较差异有显著性(均P<0.05),B组与C组比较差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);静脉炎发生率:A组(26.7%)分别与B组(3.3%)、C组(3.3%)比较差异有显著性(均P<0.05),B组与C组比较差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。但C组1例凝血功能异常患者,使用稀释肝素钠盐水封管后有出血倾向。结论采用可来福正压接头加生理盐水脉冲式封管,效果好,没有安全隐患,简单易行。Objective To compare the clinical effect of three methods of sealing peripherally inserted central catheter（PICC）.Methods 90 patients undergoing PICC were randomly divided into three groups.Group A directly used Kelaifu positive pressure joints to seal the catheter（n=30）,Group B used Kelaifu positive pressure joints and pulsed saline（n=30）,and Group C used Kelaifu positive pressure joints and diluted heparin saline（n=30）.The incidence of occlusion and phlebitis in three groups were compared.Results The incidence of occlusion and phlebitis in Group A（30.0%,26.7%）were significantly higher than those in Group B（3.3%,3.3%）and Group C（0.0%,3.3%）（all P0.05）,but there was no statistical significance between Group B and Group C（P0.05）.However,a patient of Group C with abnormal coagulation had bleeding tendency.Conclusion Kelaifu positive pressure joints and pulsed saline to seal the PICC catheter is an effective,safe,and simple method.

关 键 词：PICC 封管 静脉炎 

分 类 号：R472.99[医药卫生—护理学]