肿瘤患者经贵要与颈外静脉行PICC的临床研究  

The Clinical Studies of PICC by Basilic Vein and External Jugul Vein for Malignancy Patients

作　　者：郑海燕[1] 郑学青[1] 沈学敏[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽省蚌埠医学院第一附属医院肿瘤内科,233004

出　　处：《中华全科医学》2011年第4期650-652,共3页Chinese Journal of General Practice

摘　　要：目的探讨经贵要静脉与颈外静脉行PICC(外周中心静脉置管)的优缺点,为PICC的合理应用提供临床依据。方法对A组(经贵要静脉行PICC)58例和B组(经颈外静脉行PICC)36例从输液滴速、置管并发症、患者满意度三方面进行比较研究。结果输液高度60 cm时,B组滴速明显快于A组(P<0.01);输液高度120 cm时,两组滴速差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组并发症总发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组满意度比较,其中生活自理能力和心理承受能力两方面,A组和B组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而舒适度和不影响美观两方面两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),总体A组患者满意度较高。结论两种置管途径都是安全有效的,各有优缺点。对需要长期化疗、输液的患者,宜首选贵要静脉行PICC;当肘部血管条件差、置管失败或抢救危重患者需要快速输液时宜选择颈外静脉行PICC。Objective To explore the advantage and defect of PICC by the basilic vein and the external jugul vein, and to provide the clinical applications for PICC. Methods The speed of infusion,complications and patients＇ satisfactory were compared between group A （58 cases, by the basilic vein） and group B （36 cases, by the external jugul vein）. Results When the length of infusion was 60 cm, group B was faster than group A （P 〈 0. 01 ） ;when it was 120 cm, the two group were not different in the speed of infusion（ P 〉 0. 05 ）. The complication between the two groups were not different（ P 〉 0. 05 ）. Life ability and psychology ability were not different between the two groups （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Group A was more comfortable than Group B. Conclusion The two methods were both safe and effective,the first method（ by basilic vein） was the first choice of patient needing long period of treatment;however,when the patient required a fast speed of infusion and the condition of the veins were worse, the external jugul vein must be selected.

关 键 词：PICC 贵要静脉 颈外静脉 比较 

分 类 号：R473.73[医药卫生—护理学]