施乐扣固定装置在锁骨下静脉穿刺术中的应用

目的：研究施乐扣PICC固定装置在锁骨下静脉穿刺术中的临床应用,观察无须缝合固定后并发症的发生率。方法：应用施乐扣固定装置的治疗组与常规缝合固定的对照组进行临床观察。结果：应用施乐扣固定装置治疗组患者并发症的发生率明显低于对照组（P〈0.05）结论：在锁骨下静脉穿刺术中施乐扣固定装置取代既往的缝合固定可明显降低导管相关感染等并发症的发生,患者感到舒适、安全、方便。     

不同深静脉置管方式在乳腺癌术后化疗中的应用

目的比较不同深静脉置管方式在乳腺癌术后化疗中的临床使用效果及相关并发症。方法分别采用经锁骨下静脉、颈内静脉或外周静脉插入中心静脉导管（PICC）,为患者留置深静脉导管于上腔静脉进行乳腺癌术后辅助化疗。结果分别经锁骨下静脉、颈内静脉或外周静脉置管患者为6、9、26例,所有患者均成功置管,三组导管平均留置时间分别为（24.00±2.95）d、（27.17±5.42）d、（145.45±14.45）d,颈内静脉组发生1例置管感染,无一例发生药物渗漏性血管损伤、皮肤损伤及导管堵塞等并发症,均顺利完成化疗。结论经锁骨下静脉或颈内静脉留置时间短,平均费用低,长期使用需定期换管,适用于外周静脉插管困难患者,PICC置管保留时间长,通常一次置管可完成乳腺癌术后6次辅助化疗,定期导管护理可减少导管堵塞、感染等并发症发生,值得临床推广应用。     

西宁地区危重患者PICC置管的应用及护理

目的：PICC置管应用于危重患者抢救、治疗及肿瘤患者化疗提供安全、有效的静脉通路。方法：是经外周静脉插至中心静脉导管,尖端位于上腔静脉。结果：PICC置管方便、安全,易掌握,保留时间长,并发症少。结论：PICC置管技术是西宁地区开展的一项新的护理技术,利于推广使用。     

胸及上腹部全麻术后硬膜外置管除痛应用

胸及上腹部全麻术后硬膜外置管除痛应用武警江苏总队南京医院成干生沈中兰（南京２１００２４）关键词全麻术后硬膜外置管对胸部肺、食道、乳癌根治手术及上腹部肝、胰切除患者,为提高患者自身防止围手术期并发症的能力,我们采用术前硬膜外置管、术后分次注射吗啡的方法...     

应用中心静脉导管心包引流33例体会

目的：应用中心静脉导管对心包腔积液的引流达到诊断、治疗、减少并发症的目的。方法：我院自2002-01～2010-01对各种病因所致的心包腔积液33例患者以中心静脉导管行心包穿刺置管引流,反复抽取积液,连续24～48h心包腔内压力稳定于-5～＋5mmH2O拔出。结果：33例患者均成功穿刺置管引流,临床观察未见与心包穿刺及置管相关的并发症。结论：应用中心静脉导管行心包穿刺置管引流是安全而有效的方法,适于基层医院诊断及治疗心包积液患者。     

90例行PICC置管术患者的全程护理

目的探讨经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管置管术全程的护理方法。方法回顾性分析90例经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管置管术患者的临床资料,分析出现的问题并制定相应护理措施。结果经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管放置时间3-172 d,机械性静脉炎2例,经治疗好转;导管阻塞2例;导管脱出1例。结论操作者要熟练掌握操作技巧,术前做好置管患者的心理护理,置管后正确维护导管,加强出院指导,这样可以延长导管使用时间,减少并发症的发生。     

血透用临时中心静脉置管相关感染的临床研究

目的探讨血液透析(血透)用临时中心静脉留置导管并发感染的相关因素及临床表现特征,寻求预防感染的有效措施。方法对104例建立中心静脉导管的血透患者进行观察。(1)对不同部位(颈内或锁骨下静脉组及股静脉组)置管的感染发生率进行比较分析。(2)对相同部位不同预防方法感染发生率的比较:从样本中筛取80例经颈内或锁骨下静脉途径的临时性中心静脉置管的患者,前期37例为对照组,采用常规措施预防导管感染;后期43例为试验组,使用抗生素多途径联合给药的试验方法,两组的感染率进行比较。结果 (1)常规预防感染方法的61例临时中心静脉导管中,共发生与静脉导管相关的感染12例(19.6%),股静脉置管感染发生率(29.2%)显著高于颈内及锁骨下静脉(13.5%)(P<0.05);(2)致病菌主要为葡萄球菌属和大肠杆菌属;(3)两组采用不同的预防感染方法感染率分别为13.5%和2.3%,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论股静脉置管易发生感染,而抗生素多途径联合用药有助于降低感染率,延长置管后抗生素使用时间可能减少重新置管的几率。     

脑损伤昏迷患者术后PICC与锁骨下静脉置管的疗效观察

目的：探讨PICC与锁骨下静脉置管在脑损伤昏迷患者术后置管输液治疗的疗效。方法回顾性分析79例行PICC及63例行锁骨下静脉置管输液治疗的脑损伤昏迷患者的临床资料,比较2种治疗方法的一次性置管成功率及导管置入相关并发症的发生率。结果 PICC一次穿刺成功率94.9％（75／79）,锁骨下静脉置管一次穿刺成功率为74.5％（47／63）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;PICC组发生机械性静脉炎、堵管高于锁骨下静脉组（P＜0.05）,而导管脱落、非计划性拔管的机率小于锁骨下静脉组（P＜0.05）,两组在导管位、导管相关性感染的发生率上差异无统计学意义（ P＞0.05）。结论 PICC与锁骨下静脉置管在脑损伤昏迷患者术后输流治疗中有简单易行、护理方便,留置时长等优点,相比较而言,PICC更具有优势。     

PICC与输液港置管后血栓发生率研究

目的：探索比较植入式静脉输液港（ IVAP）与超声引导下经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管（ PICC）后血栓发生率,选择更加合适的化疗静脉输液通路。方法将收治的160例肿瘤患者作为研究对象并实施分组治疗,研究组80例均实施IVAP置管,对照组80例均实施PICC置管。将两组患者置管后的血栓发生率进行对比。结果完成置管后,研究组患者均为发生血栓并发症,比例为0.00％,而对照组血栓发生率为7.50％,研究组明显性偏低（P＜0.05）。结论和PICC置管相比,IVAP的置管后血栓发生率更低,有助于促进患者预后值得推广应用。     

胸腰椎脊柱后路椎弓根螺钉系统内固定术后迟发性感染处理

目的 探讨胸腰椎脊柱后路椎弓根螺钉系统内固定术后迟发性感染的诊断和处理方法。方法 回顾性分析17例脊柱内固定术后迟发性伤口感染患者的治疗经过。术前行影像学检查,对于术内固定后时间小于9个月、植骨未融合的患者进行伤口清创、置管冲洗引流;对于植骨已获得融合的患者行内置物取出、病灶清除、灌洗引流术,一期关闭切口。术中取标本常规细菌培养,术后静脉应用抗生素。连续3次伤口引流液培养阴性且24h引流液少于50ral者,拔除伤口引流管。结果 所有患者均获治愈。12例植骨未融合的患者行伤口清创,置管冲洗引流,其中8例患者获得治愈。9例植骨已融合的患者行内置物取出、病灶清除、灌洗引流术,一期关闭切口,迟发性感染获得治愈;其中4例为清创后3～18个月再次发生迟发性感染,复查X线片,植骨均获融合。11例患者细菌培养结果呈阳性。结论 脊柱后路内固定术后迟发性感染是一种严重并发症,伤口清创、置管冲洗引流是一种有效的治疗方法,可为早期感染植骨融合赢得时间;内固定取出为非必要条件。     

吗啡经硬膜外PCA输注对带状疱疹后神经痛NRS的影响

目的：探讨吗啡经硬膜外患者自控镇痛（patient-controlled analgesia,PCA）输注治疗带状疱疹后神经痛,对数字评分量表（numerical rating scales,NRS）的影响。方法：38例腹部带状疱疹后神经痛患者随机分为两组,两组患者均经胸椎12腰1椎间隙置入硬膜外导管,连接装有复合镇痛药液的PCA泵。A组（16例）镇痛液中不含吗啡;B组（22例）镇痛液中含有吗啡。采用数字评分量表（NRS）进行疼痛评估。结果：治疗第3、5、7天及出院后1个月,两组的NRS评分均较治疗前有显著性差异（P〈0.01）;治疗第3、5、7天,两组间NRS评分比较有统计学差异（P〈0.05）,且B组有效率高于A组（P〈0.05）。结论：硬膜外PCA输注吗啡可快速、有效缓解腹部带状疱疹后神经痛,显著降低NRS评分,提高治疗效果。     

探讨经导管高压团注尿激酶治疗急性下肢深静脉栓塞疗效观察

目的比较高压团注尿激酶和常规压力置管溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2017年5月~2018年12月我院收治的37例急性下肢深静脉血栓形成患者的临床资料,依据治疗方式不同分为观察组(n=20)和对照组(n=17),在每天使用同等剂量尿激酶的情况下,观察组给予经导管用高压注射器团注尿激酶溶栓治疗,对照组给予常规微量泵经导管接触溶栓治疗。2组均按体重给予基础抗凝治疗,术后常规抗凝6个月。比较2组患者的溶栓治疗效果,治疗前后患肢大腿、小腿的周径差值,溶栓并发症的发生率,3、6个月后深静脉通畅状况、复发率。结果在使用相同剂量尿激酶情况下,2组患者经治疗后,临床症状均明显改善,观察组部分通畅14例,完全通畅5例;对照组部分通畅9例,完全通畅3例。与对照组比较,观察组患者的溶栓时间短、并发症的发生率低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。随访发现深静脉瓣膜功能保存率无差异。结论对于下肢深静脉血栓形成的治疗,经导管高压团注溶栓比常规导管接触溶栓的效果好,可以缩短治疗时间,减少溶栓并发症的发生率,瓣膜功能保存率无差异,总的治疗费用较低。     

Externalization of Tunneled Hemodialysis Catheter in Patients with Tunnel or Exit-Site Infections and Limited Access Options

PurposeTo evaluate the viability and effectiveness of temporary externalization of a tunneled hemodialysis (HD) catheter in catheter-dependent HD patients presenting with catheter-related tunnel or exit-site infection, documented central venous stenosis, and limited alternative venous access.Materials and MethodsAll catheter-dependent HD patients with known central venous stenosis presenting with exit-site or tunnel infection and who subsequently underwent catheter externalization between February 2008 and May 2012 were reviewed. After catheter externalization, patients were concurrently treated with antibiotics for approximately 3 weeks before reinsertion of a new tunneled catheter. Treatment outcomes were collected, with treatment failures defined as reinfection with the same organism within 45 days of tunneled catheter reinsertion.ResultsThere were 42 catheter externalization procedures performed in 26 patients for 42 exit-site or tunnel infections. Technical success rate for catheter externalization was 100%, with no complications during the externalization procedure and preservation of all original access sites. Treatment failure occurred in 9.8% (4 of 41) of cases. Median infection-free survival after treatment and retunneling of a new dialysis catheter was 80 days. One major periprocedural complication of death occurred before reinsertion of a new tunneled catheter. Minor complications after the procedure occurred in four patients and included three cases of a small persistent wound at the temporary supraclavicular access site and one initially nonfunctioning externalized catheter.ConclusionsTemporary dialysis catheter externalization appears both technically feasible and effective for the treatment of exit-site and tunnel infections, while allowing preservation of the venous access site in catheter-dependent HD patients with central venous stenosis and limited alternative venous access.     

导管溶栓联合压力治疗系统在急性下肢深静脉血栓形成中的应用效果分析

目的：研究导管溶栓联合压力治疗系统治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓（LEDVT）形成的临床效果及其并发症。 方法：选取内蒙古科技大学包头医学院第一附属医院2016年1月至2018年1月收治的急性LEDVT患者66例。随机数字表法分为观察组及对照组,每组33例。对照组入院后给予抗凝、下腔静脉滤器置入、导管溶栓等常规治疗,观察组在对照组的治疗基础上采用空气波压力治疗系统进行压力治疗。 结果：治疗前,两组的大腿周径[（55.90±4.51）cm vs.（54.10±5.04）cm]和小腿周径[（44.72±3.45）cm vs.（42.85±6.53）cm]差异无统计学意义;治疗后,观察组大腿周径[（44.90±1.99）cm vs.（47.25±4.08）cm]和小腿周径[（34.25±1.51）cm vs.（37.45±1.84）cm]均明显小于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。治疗后1周,观察组的患肢皮肤温度、皮肤色泽、疼痛和通畅度评分均明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组患者均出现了溶栓并发症,观察组总发生率为15.15%（5/33）,对照组总发生率为12.12%（4/33）,差异无统计学意义（χ²=0.129,P=0.720）;两组均未出现便血、死亡等严重并发症。 结论：导管溶栓联合压力治疗LEDVT较单纯导管溶栓可以明显提高疗效、缩短疗程、减轻患者患肢症状。为LEDVT的治疗提供了全新、有效、可行的治疗方法,值得临床推广使用。     

Percutaneous placement of central venous catheters: comparing the anatomical landmark method with the radiologically guided technique for central venous catheterization through the internal jugular vein in emergent hemodialysis patients

Purpose: To compare the success and immediate complication rates of the anatomical landmark method (group 1) and the radiologically (combined real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopy) guided technique (group 2) in the placement of central venous catheters in emergent hemodialysis patients.

Material and Methods: The study was performed prospectively in a randomized manner. The success and immediate complication rates of radiologically guided placement of central venous access catheters through the internal jugular vein (n = 40) were compared with those of the anatomical landmark method (n = 40). The success of placement, the complications, the number of passes required, and whether a single or double-wall puncture occurred were also noted and compared.

Results: The groups were comparable in age and sex. The indication for catheter placement was hemodialysis access in all patients. Catheter placement was successful in all patients in group 2 and unsuccessful in 1 (2.5%) patient in group 1. All catheters functioned adequately and immediately after the placement (0% initial failure rate) in group 2, but 3 catheters (7.5% initial failure rate) were non-functional just after placement in group 1. The total number of needle passes, double venous wall puncture, and complication rate were significantly lower in group 2.

Conclusion: Percutaneous central venous catheterization via the internal jugular vein can be performed by interventional radiologists with better technical success rates and lower immediate complications. In conclusion, central venous catheterization for emergent dialysis should be performed under both real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance.     

Experience at a single institution with endovascular treatment of mechanical complications caused by implanted central venous access devices in pediatric and adult patients

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe the technical aspects and evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of endovascular management of mechanical complications related to implanted central venous devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-six patients with cancer, who ranged in age from 3 months to 75 years (mean +/- SD, 47 +/- 18 years), were referred 290 +/- 200 days (mean +/- SD; range, 0-1202 days) after central venous device placement for retrieval of a fractured and embolized central venous device catheter (n = 100), retrieval of a guidewire embolized during placement of a central venous device (n = 2), repositioning of the migrated tip of a central venous device catheter (n = 38), and fibrin-sheath stripping (n = 16). All procedures were performed with the patient under local anesthesia on an outpatient basis, except for the eight pediatric patients. RESULTS: Ninety-five of the 100 embolized catheters and both of the guidewires were successfully retrieved. Retrieval was preceded by repositioning the embolized catheter with a pigtail catheter in 48 of these cases. Most of the procedures were performed with standard vascular tools (loop snares and pigtail catheters); the use of more sophisticated devices (grasping forceps, baskets, or balloons) rarely overcame the failure of a loop snare. Repositioning a migrated catheter tip was achieved with a pigtail catheter in 32 of 38 attempts. Of the repositioned catheters, only 24 could be used. Most of the 11 repositioning and retrieval failures were encountered because the catheter lacked a free end. Fibrin-sheath stripping was always technically successful: all these catheters were patent at 3-month follow-up. No procedure-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The endovascular approach is highly feasible, safe, and effective for the management of mechanical complications of central venous devices. It is probably advisable to reserve endovascular repositioning for port catheters that are cumbersome to exchange and to replace simple catheters.     

局部应用重组水蛭素对兔耳静脉淤血皮瓣存活的影响

目的 探讨局部应用水蛭素对静脉淤血皮瓣成活的影响及其作用机制.方法 将18只健康大耳白兔随机分为3组:1个对照组(A组:注射生理盐水组)和2个治疗组(B组:低分子肝素治疗组;C组:重组水蛭素治疗组),每组6只.在左耳背部设计3 cm×6 cm的含耳中央血管、神经为蒂(蒂宽1 cm)的轴型皮瓣,于蒂部结扎并切断耳中央静脉和神经,并结扎其他旁支静脉,创面用5-0丝线结扎止血,制成以耳中央动脉为唯一血供,1cm宽的蒂部为唯一静脉回流途径的静脉淤血皮瓣模型.治疗组在术后立即分别给予皮瓣下多点、均匀注射水蛭素(1U/1 ml/皮瓣)或低分子肝素(0.5 mg/1 mL/皮瓣),对照组同法给予等量(1 ml)生理盐水,皮瓣用5-0丝线原位缝合.术后观察皮瓣表面毛发脱落、血肿形成情况和皮瓣存活率,利用组织学观察毛细血管血栓形成情况以及中性粒细胞附壁及红细胞聚集情况和免疫组化检测皮瓣内VEGF蛋白的含量.结果 ①肉眼观察:皮瓣形成后所有皮瓣均肿胀明显,远端淤血形成,颜色暗红,对照组颜色明显深于治疗组,水蛭素治疗组1例(1/6),肝素治疗组2例(2/6),生理盐水对照组4例(4/6)出现明显的血肿.②各组皮瓣存活率:低分子肝素及重组水蛭素治疗组成活面积百分比分别为(92.33±1.67)%与(94.83±1.91)%,均比生理盐水对照组的(77.93±1.18)%高,有显著差异(P<0.01),重组水蛭素治疗组与低分子肝素治疗组的皮瓣存活率无显著统计学差异(P>0.05).③组织学及免疫组化:治疗组皮下毛细血管内血栓形成及红细胞聚集情况均比对照组轻,重组水蛭素治疗组皮瓣中VEGF表达较其他两组增多.结论 重组水蛭素的应用可明显改善皮瓣的静脉淤血,促进皮瓣血管生成,提高皮瓣的成活率,并可避免发生肝素应用过程中的血小板减少症等严重并发症,可代替肝素在临床上的应用.     

Power injection of contrast media using central venous catheters: feasibility, safety, and efficacy

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of power-injecting IV contrast media through central venous catheters for CT examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred ninety-five CT examinations were performed during an 18-month period in 225 patients with indwelling central venous catheters. Patients were randomized to power injection either through peripheral IV catheter or through central venous catheter. Feasibility was defined as the percentage of patients with contrast material injected successfully through the randomized access route. Safety was evaluated by comparing patients with complications. Efficacy was evaluated by comparing contrast enhancement of the thoracic aorta, pulmonary artery, abdominal aorta, and liver. RESULTS: Two hundred nine patients had randomization data recorded. One hundred three (94%) of 109 patients were successfully injected through their indwelling catheter compared with 42 (42%) of 100 through a peripherally placed IV catheter (p < 0.001). After reassignment for unsuccessful access, 174 patients underwent central venous catheter injection, and 51, peripheral IV catheter injection. No statistically significant difference was noted in the complications between the central venous catheter and peripheral IV catheter groups. Enhancement was greater in the thoracic aorta, pulmonary artery, and liver for the peripheral IV catheter group (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Power injection of contrast media through central venous catheters for CT examinations is feasible and safe when set hospital guidelines and injection protocols are followed. This technique provides an acceptable alternative in patients without adequate peripheral IV access when bolus contrast enhancement is desired.     

Safety and feasibility of using a central venous catheter for rapid contrast injection rates

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the safety and feasibility of using a central venous catheter for rapid contrast injections during CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro experiment was performed using a 7-French Arrow-Howes multilumen central venous catheter. Each catheter port was tested by varying contrast agent flow rates delivered by a power injector. Contrast media specifications were kept similar to routine clinical practice. The in vivo experiment included 104 cases in which rapid contrast injections, 3.0-5.0 mL/sec, were delivered through a central venous catheter for dynamic CT examinations. Patient monitoring for early complications of contrast extravasation, cardiac arrhythmia, and allergic reactions was performed. Contrast injections were monitored for pressure limitation, automatic flow-rate adjustment, and catheter injury. Chart review was performed for delayed complications of mediastinal hematoma, infection, or catheter malfunction. RESULTS: During the in vitro experiment, all desired flow rates, 3.0-9.9 mL/sec, could be delivered through the central venous catheter with no catheter injury. No immediate or early patient or catheter complications were observed during the in vivo experiment. Follow-up evaluation revealed that 18 blood cultures and one catheter culture were positive for bacterial growth. In a subgroup of 43 patients, five contrast injections were pressure-limited by the power injector, and only one had the flow rate automatically adjusted to 3.6 mL/sec from 4.0 mL/sec. CONCLUSION: Rapid contrast injection rates, at 3.0-5.0 mL/sec, through the Arrow-Howes multilumen central venous catheter are feasible and safe in the clinical setting. However, a strict protocol should be followed to avoid possible serious complications.     

Repositioning and leaving in situ the central venous catheter during percutaneous treatment of associated superior vena cava syndrome: A report of eight cases

Purpose: To describe a combined procedure of repositioning and leaving in situ a central venous catheter followed by immediate percutaneous treatment of associated superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS). Methods: Eight patients are presented who have central venous catheter-associated SVCS (n = 6 Hickman catheters, n = 2 Port-a-cath) caused by central vein stenosis (n = 4) or concomitant thrombosis (n = 4). With the use of a vascular snare introduced via the transcubital or transjugular approach, the tip of the central venous catheter could be engaged, and repositioned after deployment of a stent in the innominate or superior vena cava. Results: In all patients it was technically feasible to reposition the central venous catheter and treat the SVCS at the same time. In one patient flipping of the Hickman catheter in its original position provoked dislocation of the released Palmaz stent, which could be positioned in the right common iliac vein. Conclusion: Repositioning of a central venous catheter just before and after stent deployment in SVCS is technically feasible and a better alternative than preprocedural removal of the vascular access.