分隔膜无针密闭式输液接头在CRRT股静脉血管通路应用的效果观察

[目的]探讨Q-syteTM分隔膜无针密闭式输液接头(简称Q-syte接头)在连续性肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)股静脉血管通路的应用效果。[方法]将我院急诊ICU2012年1月—2013年6月收治需行CRRT治疗66例病人随机分为观察组33例,对照组33例,观察组股静脉血管通路尾端接Q-syte接头;对照组不使用Q-syte接头,CRRT结束时用肝素帽封闭其尾端。比较两组股静脉血管通路发生导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI)、堵塞、回血的情况。[结果]观察组CRBSI、堵塞、回血均较对照组低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]Q-syte接头应用于CRRT股静脉血管通路不但能有效降低导管相关性血流感染的发生,阻止导管血液回流,而且还能满足CRRT血液流速的要求。     

持续质量改进在预防维持性血液透析患者中心静脉导管相关感染中的应用

目的探讨应用持续质量改进（CQI）的方法降低血液透析患者静脉导管相关血流感染（CRBSI）的效果。方法选择北京大学人民医院CQI前维持性透析患者（68例）分析导管相关的血流感染发生情况，采用PDCA四步法，设计并实施改善留置导管血液透析患者导管相关血流感染的防治措施，与CQI后次年同期76例中心静脉留置导管的患者导管相关血流感染发生情况比较。结果持续质量改进后，无论是非隧道式或隧道式中心静脉导管的CRBSI发生率均有不同程度降低。非隧道式中心静脉导管总体CRBSI发生率降低68％（8．1例次／1000导管日VS2．6例次／1000导管日，其中股静脉置管的CRBSI发生率由14．8例次／1000导管日降至4．1例次／1000导管日，颈内静脉置管CRBSI发生率2．6例次／1000导管日降至0．7例次／1000导管日。隧道式中心静脉置管CRBSI发生率降低了77％（5．2例／1000导管日VS0．7例／1000导管日），其中颈内静脉置管CRBSI发生率由CQI前的2．6例次／1000导管日下降至0．7例次／1000导管日。结论持续质量改进的方法可以降低维持性血液透析患者的中心静脉导管相关血流感染。     

维持性血液透析中不同血管通路使用效果的比较

目的 比较维持性血液透析中不同血管通路的使用效果.方法 选取维持性血液透析患者126例,其中长期颈内静脉导管组38例、股静脉临时导管组46例、动静脉内瘘组42例,比较不同血管通路的使用时限、并发症、透析充分性.结果 股静脉临时组使用时限明显低于长期颈内静脉组与动静脉内瘘组（P＜0.05）;动静脉内瘘组局部/全身感染明显低于其他两组;各组间血栓形成差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,股静脉临时组最高,动静脉内瘘组最低;股静脉临时组透析充分性明显优于其他两组.结论 动静脉内瘘组的综合使用情况最优,而对无法行内瘘手术的患者,长期颈内静脉导管留置同样具有良好效果.     

血液净化中不同部位行深静脉置管效果观察及护理

2004年1月-2006年5月120例经颈内静脉、100例经股静脉进行深静脉置管患者,予置管前沟通,置管后观察,加强宣教以及对误伤动脉、血肿、导管相关性感染、导管堵塞等并发症作出有针对性、预防性的干预措施。经股静脉置管,一次置管成功率为96%,而经颈内静脉置管为90%;经颈内静脉置管患者导管留置时间明显长于经股静脉置管患者;经颈内静脉置管患者导管相关性感染、导管堵塞的发生率低于经股静脉置管患者,并发局部血肿、误伤动脉的发生率却高于经股静脉置管患者。颈内静脉置管难度较股静脉置管大,容易误伤动脉、并发局部血肿,但并发导管相关性感染、堵塞率低,且患者活动不受限制,保留时间较长,可作为血液净化首选的临时血管通路。     

集束干预策略预防中心静脉导管相关性血流感染的效果观察

目的观察集束干预策略预防中心静脉导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI)的临床效果。方法选择本院2014年2~11月留置中心静脉导管、未实施集束干预策略的180例患者作为对照组;2015年2~11月留置中心静脉导管、实施集束干预策略的190例患者作为观察组。比较两组患者中CRBSI发生率、发生时间及置管情况。结果实施集束干预策略后的中心静脉置管患者CRBSD发生率由8.33‰下降至1.52‰,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);CRBSI发生时间由(7.27±2.21)d延长至(12.85±1.88)d,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);锁骨下静脉置管率从38.33%上升至68.33%,股静脉置管率从46.11%下降至17.78%,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论集束干预策略可有效降低中心静脉置管患者CRBSI发生率。     

非正压接头联合改良封管法在降低导管相关血流感染发生风险中的应用效果

[目的]探究非正压接头和改良封管手法对降低导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)发生率的作用。[方法]将373例术中通过颈内静脉置入单腔中心静脉导管病人随机分为对照组125例、观察1组124例和观察2组124例,均使用脉冲式正压冲管方式,同时分别对3组病人采用不同接头及封管手法的护理干预,对照组采用传统可来福正压接头,观察1组采用BDQ-Syte非正压接头,观察2组采用BDQ-Syte非正压接头基础上改进封管手法。跟踪4个月后比较3组CRBSI的发生率。[结果]对照组病人CRBSI发生率为2.66/千导管日,观察1组病人CRBSI发生率为1.34/千导管日,观察2组病人CRBSI发生率为0,3组病人CRBSI发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]使用非正压接头并改良封管手法能降低CRBSI发生风险。     

CVC取消输液接头环节对神经外科重症患者发生CRBSI的影响

目的:探讨中心静脉置管(CVC)取消输液接头环节对神经外科重症监护室(NSICU)患者发生中心静脉置管导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI)的影响。方法:选择2017年1月～12月NSICU收治的539例CVC患者为研究对象,随机分为对照组121例和观察组418例,对照组输液时采取常规连接输液方法,观察组采用输液器直接连接深静脉管路的方法,比较两组发生CRBSI的情况,并根据患者是否发生CRBSI将其分为感染组和非感染组,采用多因素Logistic回顾性分析患者发生CRBSI中接头环节的作用。结果:通过多因素Logistic回顾性分析发现输液接头环节是患者发生CRBSI的独立危险因素;观察组颈内静脉置管、锁骨下静脉置管、股静脉置管以及PICC置管患者CRBSI发生率和1000导管日感染例数均显著低于对照组(P 0. 01);观察组导管留置天数及住院天数显著短于对照组(P 0. 01)。结论:输液接头环节是NSICU患者发生CRBSI的独立影响因素,取消CVC患者输液接头环节后能够显著降低CRBSI发生率,减少患者导管留置天数和住院时间,为临床感染预防工作提供指导依据,值得在临床进一步应用。     

集束干预策略预防中心静脉导管相关性血流感染的效果观察

目的探讨集束干预策略预防中心静脉导管相关性血流感染(catheter related blood stream infection,CRBSI)的效果。方法将实施集束干预策略之前(2011年1～10月)留置中心静脉导管186例患者设为对照组,在实施集束干预策略之后(2012年1～10月)留置中心静脉导管193例患者设为集束组。比较实施集束干预措施前后两组患者CRBSI发生率及时间,置管情况。结果采用集束干预策略后CRBSI发生率由实施前8.31‰下降至1.67‰,前后比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001);CRBSI发生时间由(7.47±2.44)d延长至(13.75±1.92)d,前后比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);锁骨下静脉置管率从39.78%上升至71.50%,股静脉置管率从45.70%下降至18.65%,前后比较,差异具有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论集束干预策略可有效降低中心静脉置管患者CRBSI发生率。     

血透患者深静脉导管行血液透析的临床比较

目的：比较不同深静脉置管在血液透析中的应用。方法：对374例血透患者416例次深静脉置管进行回顾性分析，了解3种不同插管的血流速度、导管留置时间及导管相关的感染。结果：颈内静脉、锁骨下静脉的血流速度、透析效能、导管留置时间均明显高于股静脉插管，导管相关性感染的发生率明显低于股静脉。结论：颈内静脉插管是一种相对理想的血透临时性血管通路。     

中心静脉导管留置感染的相关因素分析及预防对策

目的:探讨中心静脉导管留置感染的相关因素及预防对策。方法:根据中心静脉导管留置时间分为Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组,按穿刺部位分为颈内静脉置管组(A组)和股静脉置管组(B组)。比较其局部感染和导管堵塞发生率。结果:导管留置时间大于15d组(Ⅲ组)局部感染和导管堵塞发生率最高;股静脉置管组局部感染和导管堵塞发生率高于颈内静脉置管组。结论:局部感染和导管堵塞的发生与中心静脉留置时间有关,颈内静脉置管组优于股静脉置管组。     

To reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections: Is the subclavian route better than the jugular route for central venous catheterization?

The most important targets of hospital-acquired infection control are to reduce the incidence of surgical-site, catheter-related, and ventilator-associated infections. In this report, we address previously presented infection-control strategies for central venous (CV) line catheterization, using a CV catheter-related infection surveillance system. Data concerning CV catheter insertion were collected from all facilities in our 650-bed hospital, excluding the operating and hemodialysis wards. Collected data included the insertion method, purpose, length of catheter inserted, duration of catheterization, infection rate, and complication rate. Catheter-related infection was diagnosed based on bacteriological examinations from blood cultures. The total number of catheterizations was 806 a year, and average duration of catheterization was 9.8 days. The purpose of catheterization was nutritional support in 210 cases, hemodialysis in 96 cases, cardiac support in 174 cases, and other treatments in 260 cases. In 66 cases, the purpose of CV catheter was not specified. The rate of positive cultures was 7.1%, and complications other than infection occurred in 0.5%. The main causative organisms were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 38.6%, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus epidermidis (CNS) in 33.3%, and S. aureus in 12.3% of infections. Infection rates were 3.8 per 1000 catheter-days in subclavian, 6.1 in jugular, and 15.7 in femoral vein catheterization. In high-risk departments (intensive care unit [ICU] and emergency departments) the infection rate was 5.4 for subclavian and 10.2 for jugular catheterization, whereas it was 3.6 for subclavian and 4.6 for jugular catheterization in noncritical-care departments. Considering complications such as pneumothorax, CV catheterization of the jugular vein is recommended in certain situations.     

246例次深静脉置管急诊血液透析治疗的安全性分析

目的 深静脉置管急诊血液透析是肾脏替代治疗的一种有效手段。本文通过对不同深静脉置管部位出现的并发症进行分析,以寻找最佳的深静脉置管急诊血液透析的方式。方法 本文分析了1993年1月至2000年6月期间,因急慢性肾功能衰竭行深静脉置管急诊血液透析治疗的住院患者。置管部位为股静脉、锁骨下静脉和颈内静脉。肝素封管方法为大剂量常规肝素一次性封管和小剂量肝素多次封管两种。结果 219例患者接受了246例次深静脉置管急诊血液透析治疗,平均置管保留时间为19.6天,合并症发生率为28.0％。股静脉置管平均保留时间为(16.89±8.11)天,合并症发生率为30.4％;锁骨下静脉置管平均保留时间为(19.85±12.10)天,合并症的发生率为38.9％;颈内静脉置管平均保留时间为(25.21±10.95)天,合并症的发生率为10.2％,与股静脉或锁骨下静脉置管相比有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论 颈内静脉置管行急诊血液透析置管保留时间最长,合并症发生率最低,最为安全可靠,应为急诊血液透析治疗首选的临时血普通路。股静脉置管方法操作方便,相对安全,但影响患者活动。锁骨下静脉置管可出现较为严重的并发症,危险性较大,不建议作为急诊血液透析治疗时的临时血管通路。     

中心静脉导管改良消毒方式及置管部位对血液透析患者导管相关性感染发生率的影响

[目的]探讨血液透析中心中心静脉导管(CVC)改良消毒方式及置管部位对血液透析患者导管相关性感染发生率的影响.[方法]选取2016年1月至2017年1月于本院接受CVC置管,并行血液透析治疗的患者200例为研究对象,按照PICC置管时消毒方式不同将其随机分为传统消毒组(A组)和改良消毒组(B组),各100例,比较两组患者导管留置时间、导管相关性感染(CRI)发生率以及不同置管部位导管局部感染率情况.[结果]B组导管留置时间(32.96±14.51)d 明显长于A组(25.38±10.19)d ,B组导管局部感染率6.00％明显低于A组17.00％(P<0.05);两组CRI发生率分别为5.00％、2.00％,比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);B组颈内静脉感染率、股静脉感染率明显低于A组(P<0.05).[结论]改良CVC消毒方式有助于延长血液透析患者导管留置时间,降低导管局部感染率,建议临床推广应用.     

血液透析患者临时中心静脉导管相关感染的回顾性研究

目的 通过对临床病例资料的回顾性研究,探讨使用临时中心静脉导管的血液透析患者发生中心静脉导管相关感染（Central venous catheters related infections,CVC-RI）的情况及危险因素.方法 以同济大学附属东方医院肾内科2010年1月至2013年6月临时中心静脉插管的132例血液透析患者为研究对象,收集资料,分析CVC-RI的发生情况及危险因素.结果 ①132例患者中,共行中心静脉置管术149例次,符合中心静脉导管相关感染诊断标准的病人31例,CVC-RI发病率为23.5％.②置管后发生感染的时间最短9d,最长41d,不同置管时间的感染率有统计学差异（P＜0.05）.③颈内静脉和股静脉置管的感染分别为13例（41.9％）和18例（58.1％）.二者比较无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.④CVC-RI患者相关培养中革兰阳性菌17例（54.8％）和革兰阴性菌14例（45.2％）,二者比较无统计学差异（P＞0.05）.⑤年龄、留置时间、穿刺过程是否顺利、有无他处感染、糖尿病、是否使用免疫抑制剂均是导致CVC-RI的危险因素（P＜0.05）.结论 ①年龄、留置时间、穿刺过程是否顺利、有无他处感染、糖尿病、是否使用免疫抑制剂是导致CVC-RI的危险因素.②静脉置管时间大于2周的患者CVC-RI发生率明显增高.③颈内静脉和股静脉置管患者CVC-RI的发生无明显差异.④CVC-RI患者中革兰阳性菌和阴性菌发生感染的比例无明显差异.     

连续性肾脏替代疗法在治疗伴急性肾衰竭的多器官功能障碍综合征中的应用

目的 :探讨连续性肾脏替代疗法 (CRRT)治疗伴急性肾衰竭 (ARF)的多器官功能障碍综合征(MODS)患者的临床疗效和影响预后的因素。方法 :应用 CRRT治疗 2 2例伴 ARF的 MODS患者 ,所有患者CRRT治疗前后均记录液体摄入量 ,每日检查血肌酐 (SCr)、尿素氮 (BUN )、血钾、血碳酸氢根浓度、动脉血p H;对 10例存活患者 (存活组 )和 12例死亡组患者 (死亡组 )的临床资料进行统计学分析。回顾分析应用间歇性血液透析 (IHD)治疗 17例伴 ARF的 MODS患者的液体摄入量 ,每日晨 SCr、BU N、血钾。结果 :CRRT组和IHD组每日液体摄入量分别为 (5 2 37± 10 6 ) m l和 (2 319± 87) ml(P<0 .0 5 )。 IHD组透析间期出现透析相关性低血压 13例次 ,发生容量依赖性心功能衰竭 8例次 ;而 CRRT组分别为 3例次及 1例次 (P均 <0 .0 1)。IHD组每日晨平均 SCr、BU N均高于 CRRT组 (P均 <0 .0 5 )。 IHD组和 CRRT组存活率分别为 35 .3% (6 / 17)和4 5 .5 % (10 / 2 2 ,P>0 .0 5 )。死亡组患者年龄更大 ,病情更重 ,需要机械通气患者数更多。结论 :CRRT控制伴ARF的 MODS患者酸碱平衡、液体平衡及氮质血症优于 IHD;伴 ARF的 MODS患者的预后与原发病、衰竭器官数、年龄等因素有关 ;CRRT可以改善危重 MODS患者的预后。     

The safety of prolonging the use of central venous catheters: a prospective analysis of the effects of using antiseptic-bonded catheters with daily site care

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) when antiseptic-bonded central venous catheters (CVCs) and standardized daily site care are used with no predetermined interval for removal. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Two major trauma centers. PATIENTS: All trauma patients admitted to two major trauma centers that received a CVC from May 1996 through May 1998. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Catheters were semiquantitatively cultured to identify bacterial colonization and CRBSI. Monitored variables included total catheter days, anatomical site of catheter insertion, and area in hospital of catheter insertion. CVC tips and intracutaneous segments were semiquantitatively cultured. A total of 460 (92%) of 501 catheters placed in 324 trauma patients were evaluable, representing 95.5% of all catheter days during the study period. Rates of catheter colonization and CRBSI were 5% (5/1000 catheter days) and 1.5% (1.511000 catheter days), respectively. Subclavian catheters were in place longer than femoral or internal jugular catheters (p < .0001), but the colonization rate was significantly lower (p = .03; relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.77). No differences in CRBSI rates among anatomical sites or between catheters used < or =14 days and those used >14 days were identified. CONCLUSION: Femoral and internal jugular antiseptic-bonded CVCs develop bacterial colonization earlier than subclavian CVCs. Subclavian antiseptic-bonded CVCs combined with standardized daily site care may be safely used >14 days in trauma patients.     

Catheter-related infection in critically ill patients

Objective To describe the incidence of the catheter-related local infection (CRLI) and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) of central venous catheters (CVCs) and arterial catheters (ACs).Design Prospective, observational study.Setting A 24-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit of a 650-bed university hospital.Patients We included 988 consecutive patients admitted to the ICU during 18 months.Measurements The incidence density of CRLI and CRBSI, per 1000 catheter-days, of CVC and AC.Results Central venous catheters had a significantly higher incidence density of CRLI (4.74 vs 0.97/1,000 catheter-days; p<0.001) than ACs. Femoral venous access had a higher incidence density of CRLI than subclavian (13.15 vs 1.81/1,000 catheter-days, p=0.003) and than peripheral access (13.15 vs 2.30/1,000 catheter-days, p<0.001). Jugular venous access had a higher incidence density of CRLI (6.29 vs 1.81/1,000 catheter-days, p<0.001) than subclavian access. We found no significant differences in the incidence density of CRLI and CRBSI between the different AC accesses.Conclusions In the CDC guidelines, catheter insertion at the subclavian site is recommended in preference to femoral and jugular accesses, and there is no recommendation about AC site insertion. Our data support these recommendations about CVCs. Because the AC infection rate was very low, our study suggests that the access site is probably not of major importance for this type of catheter.     

Incidence,risk factors and microbiology of central vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection in an intensive care unit

Although there are many studies about catheter related infection in industrialized countries, very few have analyzed it in emerging countries. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence, microbiological profile and risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in a Tunisian medical intensive care unit. Over eight months (1 January 2012–30 August 2012) a prospective, observational study was performed in an 18-bed medical surgical intensive care unit at Tunis military hospital. Patients who required central venous catheter (CVC) placement for a duration greater than 48 h were included in the study. Two hundred sixty patients, with a total of 482 CVCs were enrolled. The mean duration of catheterization was 9.6 ± 6.2 days. The incidence for CRBSI and catheter colonization (CC) was 2.4 and 9.3 per 1000 catheter days, respectively. Risk factors independently associated with CRBSI were diabetes mellitus, long duration of catheterization, sepsis at insertion and administration of one or more antibiotics before insertion. The mortality rate among the CRBSI group was 21.8%. The predominant microorganisms isolated from CRBSI and CC episodes were Gram negative bacilli. All Gram negative organisms isolated among dead patients in CRBSI group were Extensive Drug Resistant (XDR). In our study the mortality rate among patients with CRBSI was high despite a low incidence of CRBSI. This high rate can be explained by the high-virulent status of Gram negative bacteria involved in CRBSI.     

Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections

Central venous catheters are commonly used in critically ill patients. Such catheterization may entail mechanical and infectious complications. The interest in catheter-related infection lies in the morbidity, mortality and costs that it involved. Numerous contributions have been made in the prevention of catheter-related infection and the current review focuses on the possible current role of antimicrobial impregnated catheters to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). There is evidence that the use of chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine (CHSS), rifampicin-minocycline, or rifampicin-miconazol impregnated catheters reduce the incidence of CRBSI and costs. In addition, there are some clinical circumstances associated with higher risk of CRBSI, such as the venous catheter access and the presence of tracheostomy. Current guidelines for the prevention of CRBSI recommended the use of a CHSS or rifampicin-minocycline impregnated catheter in patients whose catheter is expected to remain in place > 5 d and if the CRBSI rate has not decreased after implementation of a comprehensive strategy to reduce it.