动静脉内瘘拔针及止血方法的探讨  

A study on arteriovenous internal fistula pulling needle and hemostasis methods

作　　者：罗国慧[1] 

机构地区：[1]厦门大学附属中山医院肾内科,福建厦门361004

出　　处：《国际护理学杂志》2013年第1期203-205,共3页international journal of nursing

摘　　要：目的探讨动静脉内瘘拔针及止血方法。方法选取在厦门市某三甲医院血透室行血液透析患者60例，共行拔针3600次，随机分为观察组和对照组各30例，每组各行拔针1800次。对照组给予快出拔针及常规压迫止血，观察组给予缓出拔针及内瘘动脉端加压止血。治疗达标后使用数字疼痛分级法及Wong—Banker面部表情量表法[1]对两组患者的疼痛针次数、疼痛程度及内瘘动脉端渗血针次数进行调查比较。结果观察组患者拔针疼痛发生率为19．06％，对照组疼痛发生率为40．28％，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），观察组疼痛程度明显轻于对照组（P〈0．05），观察组内瘘动脉端渗血针次数显著少于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论缓出拔针及内瘘动静脉端加压止血法可减轻患者疼痛程度，减少动脉端渗血，有利于动脉内瘘的保护，提高患者血液透析舒适度。Objective To explore two kinds of internal fistula needle pulling method and hemostasis methods. Methods In a top three hospital of Xiamen, 60 patients with hemodialysis were selected and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group, a total of 3600 pin. Quickly pulling the needle out and routine compression hemostasis were adopted in control group and slowly pulling the needle out and internal fistula compression hemostasis were adopted in observation group. Numeric pain grading method and Wong - Banker facial scale were used to evaluate the number of aching needles, pain degree and fistula arterial end oozing needle number between two groups. Results Pain occurrence rate was 19. 06% in the observation group, while that was 40. 28% in control group, and pain degree and fistula arterial end oozing needle number in observation group were better than those in control group （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The differences were sta- tistically significantly （P 〈 0. 05 ） . Conclusions Slowly pulling out needle and fistula arteriovenous end pressurizing hemostatic method can relieve the patients＇ pain and arterial end bleeding artery fistula, is conducive to the protection of arteriovenous internal fistula and im- provement of hemodialysis comfort.

关 键 词：血液透析 动静脉内瘘 拔针 止血 

分 类 号：R472[医药卫生—护理学]