PICC患者自我管理研究现状

经外周置入中心静脉导管（peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC）已在化疗患者中广泛应用,尤其适用于化疗间歇期带管回家的患者。PICC留置期间患者自我管理质量直接影响导管安全。本文就PICC患者自我管理的研究现状进行综述,简要介绍CDSMP（慢性病自我管理项目）在PICC患者自我管理中的应用,以利于今后的研究。     

个性化优质护理在PICC置管结直肠癌患者中的应用效果评价

目的：探讨个性化优质护理在经外周静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)置管结直肠癌患者中的应用效果。方法：采用便利抽样的方法,选择2020年6月至2022年2月期间在攀枝花市第二人民医院肝胆肛肠外科进行PICC置管的结直肠癌化疗患者92例作为研究对象,采用随机数字表法分为对照组(n=46)和观察组(n=46),对照组给予常规护理,观察组在常规护理基础上实施个性化优质护理措施,分别采用肿瘤患者PICC自我管理能力量表(Cancer Patients PICC Self-Managment Scale,CPPSM)、纽卡斯尔护理服务满意度量表(Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales,NSNS)评估2组患者干预前后的自我管理能力、护理服务满意度,收集2组患者临床资料,比较2组患者的非计划性拔管率和并发症发生率等。结果：干预前,观察组与对照组患者PICC自我管理能力各维度得分及总分之间差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05);干预后,观察组及对照组患者PICC自我管理能力各...     

基于思维导图的健康教育对肺癌化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管术管道自我管理及并发症的影响

目的 分析基于思维导图的健康教育对肺癌化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管术(PICC)管道自我管理及并发症的影响.方法 将2019年6—12月收治的30例肺癌PICC化疗患者作为对照组,2020年1—6月收治的30例肺癌PICC化疗患者作为观察组,对照组患者予以健康教育干预,观察组患者予以基于思维导图的健康教育干预.比较干预前后两组患者负性情绪评分、自我管理能力评分、生存状态评分以及并发症发生率.结果 干预后,观察组患者焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分均明显低于对照组,自我管理能力中科学膳食、合理运动、遵医嘱服药、定期复查评分均明显高于对照组,生存状态评分中精神面貌、疼痛缓解、呼吸状况、行动能力评分均明显高于对照组,并发症总发生率低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).结论 基于思维导图的健康教育有利于缓解肺癌PICC化疗患者的负性情绪,提高其自我管理能力,改善生存状态,降低并发症的发生率.     

医患一体化模式的预见性健康干预对乳腺癌化疗患者外周中心静脉导管置管相关性血栓的防护效果

目的 观察医患一体化模式的预见性健康干预对乳腺癌化疗患者外周中心静脉导管(PICC)置管相关性血栓的防护效果.方法 将60例接受PICC置管的乳腺癌化疗患者按干预方法不同分为对照组(30例)和观察组(30例),其中对照组给予常规干预,观察组在此基础上给予医患一体化模式的预见性健康干预.观察两组患者PICC相关性血栓发生率,比较干预前后两组患者导管自我管理能力、导管维护依从性和护理满意度的差异.结果 观察组患者PICC相关血栓发生率为0％,低于对照组的20.00％,差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).干预前,两组患者导管自我管理能力各维度评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);干预后,观察组患者带管日常生活、带管运动、日常导管观察、导管维护依从性、信息获取、导管异常情况处理、导管管理信心、PICC管理能力总分均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).观察组患者导管维护依从率及护理满意度均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).结论 医患一体化模式的预见性健康干预可有效预防乳腺癌化疗患者PICC置管相关性血栓的形成,可提高患者导管自我管理能力,对提高患者的护理满意度有积极意义.     

慢性病自我管理对恶性肿瘤经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管化疗患者的应用

目的探讨慢性病自我管理(CDSMP)对恶性肿瘤经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(PICC)化疗患者的应用效果。方法选取2013年1月至2015年1月间收治的188例恶性肿瘤PICC化疗患者,按患者化疗时间顺序,分为CDSMP组和对照组,每组94例。CDSMP组患者实施CDSMP模式,对照组患者实施常规PICC健康宣教。比较两组患者化疗结束且PICC拔管前的健康状况、PICC自我管理能力、疾病自我管理行为和并发症发生率等情况。结果 CDSMP组患者的健康状况、PICC自我管理能力、疾病自我管理行为和并发症发生率均明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 CDSMP模式可以有效地改善恶性肿瘤PICC化疗患者的健康状况、PICC自我管理能力和疾病自我管理行为,且对降低并发症发生率具有明显的促进作用。     

微场景健康教育平台在乳腺癌化疗PICC置管患者出院后的应用效果

目的探讨微场景健康教育平台在乳腺癌化疗PICC置管患者出院后的临床应用效果。方法选取2015年7月至2020年6月间湖北省武穴市第一人民医院收治的67例女性乳腺癌患者,按照护理方式不同分为观察组34例和对照组33例。对照组患者采用常规护理项目及健康教育,观察组患者在对照组基础上增加微场景健康教育宣教,比较两组患者置管相关并发症发生情况、护理前后自我管理能力变化及护理满意度。结果观察组患者PICC置管并发症发生率为2.9%,低于对照组的18.2%,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预前,两组患者自我管理能力各项评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。干预后,观察组患者自我管理能力各项评分均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。健康教育后,观察组患者护理满意度为94.1%,高于对照组的75.8%,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(X^2=4.45,P<0.05)。结论微场景健康教育平台能降低乳腺癌PICC置管患者出院后并发症发生率,提高自我管理能力,提高患者及家属满意度。     

PICC置管在肿瘤患者静脉化疗中的应用及护理体会

目的 探讨PICC置管在肿瘤患者静脉化疗中的应用以及护理体会.方法 对我科125例应用PICC进行静脉化疗的肿瘤患者进行回顾性分析,探讨导管留置并发症相关护理问题.结果 导管留置并发症居前3位的是:静脉炎(4.0%)、导管相关性感染(2.4%)和导管滑脱(1.6%).结论 PICC置管具有留置时间长、并发症少和提高患者生存质量等多种优点,通过合理护理及预防,PICC置管在肿瘤患者静脉化疗中具有良好应用前景.     

急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺的中心静脉导管相关性感染影响因素的Logistic回归分析

目的探讨急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺的中心静脉导管(PICC)导管相关性感染影响因素的Logistic回归分析。方法选取120例急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者,整理、分析所有患者病历资料,如性别、年龄、化疗次数、穿刺部位、穿刺次数、置管时间、糖尿病、免疫功能等,分析PICC导管相关性感染的危险因素进行单因素和Logistic回归分析,探讨感染危险因素,并提出预防对策。结果120例急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者中,PICC导管相关性感染17例,感染率为14.17%;共检出17株病原菌,其中革兰氏阴性菌占比58.82%,革兰氏阳性菌占比41.18%。不同性别、穿刺部位急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者PICC导管相关性感染发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);不同年龄、化疗次数、置管时间、免疫功能情况、糖尿病情况急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者PICC导管相关性感染发生率比较,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。Logistic回归分析结果显示,年龄≥65岁、化疗次数≥11次、置管时间≥11 h、免疫功能低下、有糖尿病史是急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者PICC导管相关性感染的独立危险因素(P﹤0.05)。结论年龄≥65岁、化疗次数≥11次、置管时间≥11 h、免疫功能低下、有糖尿病史是急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗患者PICC导管相关性感染的独立危险因素,临床治疗应该选择合适的化疗方案,缩短置管时间,针对危险因素积极采取预防措施,从而减少PICC导管感染发生。     

化疗患者经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管相关性感染危险因素分析

目的探讨化疗患者经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)留置后导管相关性感染的危险因素。方法选取接受化疗且接受PICC治疗的260例患者为研究对象,记录患者PICC留置期间感染发生率,并进行病原菌分布检测,对PICC相关性感染的危险因素进行单因素分析以及多因素Logistic分析。结果260例患者中有35例患者发生PICC导管相关性感染,感染率为13.46%,其中局部感染率为65.71%(23/35),其次为血流感染28.57%(10/35),其他原因为5.71%(2/35)。35例发生PICC感染患者共分离出病原菌48株,病原菌分布依次为:金黄色葡萄球菌43.75%(21/48),表皮葡萄球菌27.08%(13/48),白色假丝酵母菌14.58%(7/48),鲍氏不动杆菌8.33%(4/48),肺炎克雷伯杆菌4.17%(2/48),其他葡萄球菌2.08%(1/48)。导管留置时间≥60 d、化疗疗程≥8次、外周血象异常、换药频次≥7 d、护士置管经验不足、免疫功能低下、有合并症是导致患者出现PICC相关性感染的独立危险因素(P﹤0.05)。结论化疗患者PICC导管相关性感染发生率较高,且受多种因素影响,需要结合危险因素以及患者自身情况给予合理的护理措施,以降低PICC留置期间感染率。     

肿瘤化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管术置管相关并发症危险因素分析及预防

目的探讨肿瘤化疗患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管术(PICC)置管相关并发症危险因素及其预防护理措施。方法选取2016年3月至2017年3月间山东省青岛市市立医院收治的行PICC置管的318例肿瘤患者,记录患者PICC置管相关并发症发生率,采用单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析,分析患者PICC置管相关并发症危险因素。结果 318例肿瘤化疗PICC置管患者发生置管后相关并发症发生率为19.5%,其中置管相关并发症主要以导管相关性感染为主;单因素分析结果显示,年龄、合并糖尿病、免疫功能低下、置管方式、血栓史、导管管腔数及导管留置时间对患者PICC置管相关并发症有影响,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。多因素分析结果显示,免疫功能低下、年龄、导管留置时间及置管方式为影响肿瘤化疗患者PICC置管相关并发症发生的独立危险因素,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论免疫功能低下、高龄、导管置管时间长及盲穿是肿瘤化疗患者PICC置管相关并发症发生的独立危险因素。     

Diagnosis prevention and treatment for PICC-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in breast cancer patients

Aim: To study the incidence, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)‐related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in breast cancer patients using a PICC catheter for chemotherapy. Methods: The data of the incidence, diagnosis and treatment of PICC‐related upper extremity DVT in 187 breast cancer patients using a PICC catheter for chemotherapy, from August 2009 to July 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In total 188 PICC were inserted between August 2009 and July 2011 and followed up for a total of 14 399 catheter‐days (median placement, 76.6 days; range, 1 to 170 days). Four (2.1%) of 188 PICC were removed as a result of PICC‐related upper extremity DVT in 14 to 112 catheter‐days, at a rate of 0.28/1000 catheter‐days. Conclusion: The use of PICCs in breast cancer patients for chemotherapy is safe and effective. However, some patients may develop catheter‐related upper extremity DVT. In order to minimize complications, we should pay attention to its early symptoms and signs, as well as the timely removal of the catheter and appropriate anti‐coagulant treatment.     

经外周插管的中心静脉导管的预处理对乳腺癌化疗患者机械性静脉炎发生率的影响

目的通过对导管的预处理及送管速度的控制,减少对血管内膜的刺激,以期降低机械性静脉炎的发生率。方法将需要插管化疗的女性乳癌患者分为两组,试验组对导管进行预处理,即插管前将导管浸泡在无菌生理盐水100ml加地塞米松5mg、利多卡因2ml的混合液中,时间1min,穿刺成功后缓慢匀速送入导管;对照组插管前导管不浸泡,穿刺成功后快速送入导管。结果对导管进行预处理之后,机械性静脉炎发生率由原来的26.7%降至10.7%,两组静脉炎的发生率差异有显著性(P(0.05)。结论插管前对导管进行浸泡、穿刺成功后缓慢匀速送管可以降低机械性静脉炎的发生率。     

PICC与IVPA在肿瘤化疗患者中的临床应用比较

目的:探讨外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)与植入式输液港(implantable venous port access,IVPA)在肿瘤化疗患者中的应用比较,为临床置管应用提供参考.方法:选择2016年1月到2017年1月在西安某三所附属医院肿瘤科收治的825例肿瘤化疗患者为研究对象,依照家庭经济情况、患者及家属的意愿,分为PICC组(470例)和IVPA组(355例).比较2组的置管成功率、导管留置时间、导管维护操作时间、导管相关并发症的发生率、患者的置管舒适度及置管的费用等.结果:PICC与用IVPA组置管成功率、导管留置时间、导管维护操作时间、导管相关并发症的发生率、患者带管期间的置管舒适度及置管费的组间数据比较,差异具有统计学意义,P ＜0.05.结论:对于肿瘤化疗者,推荐使用IVPA法,此方式可降低并发症的发生率,减少护士工作量及工作强度,提高患者的置管舒适度,降低医疗成本.     

A Frontline Approach With Peripherally Inserted Versus Centrally Inserted Central Venous Catheters for Remission Induction Chemotherapy Phase of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Randomized Comparison

BackgroundThe incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related adverse events has been uncertain in the setting of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with the incidence of centrally inserted central catheter (CICC) adverse events.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a monocentric, randomized trial of patients with previously untreated AML. Of the 93 patients, 46 had received a PICC and 47 had received a CICC as frontline intravascular device. Thereafter, all patients underwent intensive chemotherapy for hematologic remission induction. The primary endpoint was catheter-related (CR)-bloodstream infection (BSI) and venous thrombosis (VT) rate. The secondary endpoints catheter malfunction, catheter removal, and patient overall survival.ResultsThe CR-BSI and CR-VT rate in the PICC and CICC groups was 13% and 49%, respectively, with a difference of 36 percentage points (relative risk for CR-BSI or CR-VT, 0.266; P = .0003). The CR-BSI incidence was 1.4 and 7.8 per 1000 catheters daily in the PICC and CICC groups, respectively. Among the CR thromboses, the symptomatic VT rate was 2.1% in the PICC group and 10.6% in the CICC group. In the CICC group, 16 of the 47 patients (34%) had the catheter removed for BSI (n = 5), septic thrombophlebitis (n = 4), VT (n = 2), or malfunction (n = 5) a median of 7 days after insertion. In the PICC group, only 6 of the 46 patients (13%) required catheter removal for VT (n = 2) or malfunction (n = 4). At a median follow-up of 30 days, 6 patients in the CICC group died of CR complications versus none of the patients in the PICC group (P = .012). Using PICCs, the reduction in BSI and symptomatic VT decreased mortality from CR infection and venous thromboembolism. In contrast, the CICC approach led to early catheter removal mostly for difficult-to-treat infectious pathogens.ConclusionOur data have confirmed that BSI and symptomatic VT are the major complications affecting frontline central intravascular device-related morbidity in the leukemia setting. The use of a PICC is safer than that of a CICC and maintains the effectiveness for patients with AML undergoing chemotherapy, with an approximate fourfold lower combined risk of infection or thrombosis at 30 days.     

Diagnosis and treatment of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC)-related sepsis in breast cancer patients carrying PICC catheter for chemotherapy

Objective  

The aim of our research was to study the incidence, clinical diagnosis and treatment of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC)-related sepsis in breast cancer patients carrying PICC catheter for chemotherapy.     

消化道肿瘤术后经植入式静脉港与外周静脉通路化疗患者生活质量的对比研究

目的:比较经外周静脉中心静脉置管(PICC)与植入式中心静脉输液港(VPA)在消化道肿瘤术后化疗患者中的应用,两者在生活质量及自理能力方面的差异以及影响因素分析.方法:选择2013年10月至2016年6月的收治的消化道肿瘤术后化疗患者306例,以便利抽样的方法分为PICC组(对照组,n=155)与VPA组(实验组,n=151),对比置管方式对生活质量、自理能力的差异,分析其影响因素.结果:置管前,两组患者的生活质量评分无显著差异(P>0.05),自理能力评分有差异(P<0.05);置管化疗3周期后,实验组自理能力、生活质量明显高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).影响两组患者生活质量的危险因素包括性别、肿瘤类型、病理分期.结论:置管前两组患者的生活质量评分无显著差异,置管后两组的自理能力和生活质量评分实验组明显高于对照组,提示VPA置管能提高患者的自理能力和生活质量,是消化道肿瘤术后化疗患者的优选深静脉置管方式.     

Vascular access via peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs): experience in 40 patients with acute myeloid leukemia at a single institute.

Reliable long-term vascular access is essential for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have been in use for many years, little data exist on their use in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed all AML patients who had a PICC inserted between July 95 and May 98. Fifty two PICCs were inserted in 40 patients with AML. Thirty three PICCs were inserted during severe thrombocytopenia (platelets < 50 x 10(9)/L), and 31 during severe neutropenia (neutrophils < 0.5 x 10(9)/L). Mean catheter duration was 82 (median 63, range 3-441) days for a total of 4274 catheter days. A mean of 1.8 chemotherapy courses were administered via each PICC. There were 5 early complications of PICC placement. Other mechanical complications occurred in 14 catheters and phlebitis in 12. Twenty blood stream infections (BSI) occurred in 17 patients. All BSIs occurred during neutropenia. Seventeen PICCs were removed due to the following complications - phlebitis (11), possible catheter related BSI (4), mechanical reasons in 3 (2 with concomitant phlebitis) and persistent fever (1). PICC duration was significantly shorter in these 17 catheters (52.9 v 96.4 days in the other 35, p=0.0289). We conclude that PICCs provide long-term vascular access with an acceptable complication rate in patients with AML. However, a randomised trial is required before PICCs can be considered an alternative to tunneled central venous catheters in these patients.     

Peripherally inserted central catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

The purpose of the study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for venous thrombosis in patients with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). A retrospective study of all upper extremity venous duplex scans was carried out in the Vascular Medicine department from year 2000 to 2002 inclusive. A chart review of positive scans was undertaken to identify possible thrombotic risk factors. Of 317 upper extremity venous duplex scans carried out, 115, or 32%, were positive for upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Three main risk factors were identified – presence of a central line, malignancy and administration of chemotherapy. PICC were the most common central line present. Symptomatic thrombosis occurred in 7% of PICC inserted for chemotherapy compared with 1% of PICC inserted for other reasons. Ten per cent of the patients receiving chemotherapy through a PICC developed a thrombosis. The post‐thrombotic syndrome was infrequent following upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Patients receiving chemotherapy through a PICC are at increased risk of thrombosis. There may be a role for prophylactic low‐dose anticoagulation in these high‐risk patients.