摘要
目的 比较经锁骨下静脉、股静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(central venous catheter,CVC)与经周围静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)发生导管源性感染的情况。方法 将需要置入中心静脉导管的患者按随机数字表法分为经锁骨下静脉穿刺组(Ⅰ组)、经股静脉穿刺组(Ⅱ组)和经周围静脉穿刺组(Ⅲ组)。每组各57例,观察3组患者局部感染和导管源性感染情况。结果 Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组均较Ⅲ组的导管细菌培养阳性率和局部感染率高(P<0.01)。结论 PICC操作方法简单,导管源性感染等并发症发生率较低,中心静脉导管留置时间较长,值得在临床上推广和应用。
Objective To compare the incidences of catheter-related infection ( CRI) caused by centrally inserted central catheterization with that caused by peripherally inserted central catheterization ( PICC) . Methods 171 patients requiring central venous catheterization were equally randomized into three groups; Group A, using centrally inserted subclavian catheterization, Group B, using femoral catheterization, and Group C, using PICC. Local infection and CRI were observed and analyzed. Results The catheter culture positive rate of Group A and B was higher than that of Group C( P <0. 01). Conclusion PICC is easier to perform with lower incidence of CRI and longer indwelling time, and therefore is warranted to be used more widely in clinical practice.
出处
《解放军护理杂志》
2003年第7期10-11,共2页
Nursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army
