老年血液透析患者不同类型血管通路并发症对比  

作　　者：曾海鸥[1] 罗敏虹[1] 袁丽萍[1] 陈圳炜[1] 杨铁城[1] 伍强[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省深圳市第四人民医院,广东深圳518000

出　　处：《现代妇女（医学前沿）》2014年第5期47-48,共2页Modern Women

摘　　要：目的分析比较老年维持性血液透析患者使用不同类型血管通路的透析充分性及并发症情况。方法收集我院2011年1月至2014年1月收治的建立长期血管通路的老年血液透析患者260例作为研究对象，根据建立的血管通路类型将其分为聚四氟乙烯移植血管组（PTFE组）36例、自体血管动静脉内瘘组（AVF组）168例和深静脉带涤纶套双腔半永久导管组（CTC组）56例。比较并分析三组患者透析充分性及并发症的发生情况。结果三组患者Kt／V值均〉1．3。AVF组发生栓塞率[20．24％（34／168）]显著低于PTFE组[33．33％（12／36）]和CTC组[41．07％（23／56）]，P〈0．05；AVF组发生感染率[2．98％（5／168）]和PTFE组[2．78％（1／36）]相当，均显著低于CTC组[17．86％（10／56），其差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论AVF组患者透析充分性高且并发症少，建议临床上首选AVF作为长期血管通路，当不能建立AVF时，PTFE和CTC也不失为一种良好的选择。Objective： To compare the elderly hemodlysis patients with different types of vascular access for dialysis adequacy and complications. Methods： Our hospital from January 2011 to January 2014 admitted to establish long-term vascular access in hemodialysis patients as research subjects aged 260 cases, according to the type of vascular access created will be divided into groups of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts （PTFE group） 36 cases, antilogous vascular arteriovenous fistula group （AVF group） 168 cases and 56 cases of deep vein lumen with polyester sleeve semi-pemlanent catheter group （CTC group）. Compare and analyze the three groups of patients the incidence of dialysis adequacy and complications. Results： The three groups of patients with Kt / V values were 〉 1.3 . AVF thrombosis rate group [ 20.24% （ 34 / 168 ） ] was significantly lower than PTFE group [ 33.33% （ 12/ 36 ） ] and the CTC group [41.07% （23/56）], P 〈0.05; AVF group had infection [ 2.98% （ 5 / 168 ） ] and PTFE group [ 2.78% （ 1 /36 ） ] rather , were significantly lower than the CTC group [ 17.86% （ 10/ 56 ） , the difference was stadsticaUy significant （P 〈0.05）. Conclusion： AVF dialysis patients and fewer complications sufficiently high , it is recommended as the preferred long-term vascular access AVF Clinically, when you can not build AVF, PTFE and CTC may well be a good choice.

关 键 词：老年维持性血液透析患者 不同类型血管通路 AVF PTFE CTC 

分 类 号：R45[医药卫生—治疗学]