隧道式PICC置管与传统PICC置管的对照研究  

A comparative study of tunnel PICC catheterization and conventional PICC catheterization

作　　者：范彬[1] 黄芬[1] 梅孟雪 FAN Bin;HUANG Fen;MEI Mengxue(The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University,Nanchang 330006,China)

机构地区：[1]南昌大学第二附属医院,江西南昌330006

出　　处：《中国现代医生》2020年第27期166-169,共4页China Modern Doctor

摘　　要：目的探讨隧道式PICC置管方法与传统PICC置管的应用效果。方法选取2019年10月~2020年3月我中心收治的76例PICC静脉置管患者为研究对象,使用随机数字表法均分为观察组和对照组,每组各38例。观察组采用超声引导下隧道式PICC静脉置管方法,对照组采用常规超声引导下塞丁格PICC静脉置管方法,研究结局包括并发症发生率、一次置管成功率。结果观察组患者渗血程度与量管后机械性静脉炎发生情况优于对照组,一次置管成功率和导管脱出发生率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论相比于常规超声引导下塞丁格PICC技术,隧道式PICC置管术可有效降低置管后渗血、机械性静脉炎及导管脱出的发生率,延长导管留置时间,有更好的临床应用价值。Objective To investigate the application effect of tunnel PICC catheterization and conventional PICC catheterization.Methods A total of 76 patients with PICC catheterization in our center from October 2019 to March 2020 were selected as the research object.The patients were divided into the observation group and the control group by using a random number table method,with 38 cases in each group.The observation group used ultrasonic guided tunnel PICC catheterization method.The control group used conventional ultrasonic guided Sedinger PICC intravenous catheter method.The study outcomes included the incidence of complications,success rate of catheterization at a time.Results The degree of bleeding,mechanical phlebitis after catheterization in the observation group were better than those in the control group,the success rate of catheterization at a time and the incidence rate of catheter prolapse in the observation group were lower than those in the control group,the differences were significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Compared with conventional ultrasonically guided PICC technique,tunnel PICC catheterization can effectively reduce the incidence of errhysis,mechanical phlebitis and catheter prolapse after catheterization,and prolong catheter indwelling time,which has better clinical application value.

关 键 词：隧道式PICC置管 静脉置管术 并发症 传统PICC置管 

分 类 号：R73[医药卫生—肿瘤]