无缝线固定颈内静脉置入中心静脉导管法在危重新生儿中的临床应用

[目的]探讨无缝线固定颈内静脉置入中心静脉导管法在危重新生儿中的临床应用效果。[方法]将2014年1月—2015年8月新生儿重症监护室(NICU)经颈内静脉置入中心静脉导管术(CVC)后的32例患儿行缝线固定为对照组,进行回顾性分析;2015年8月—2017年4月经颈内静脉置入中心静脉导管术后行无缝线固定的28例患儿为试验组,比较两组固定效果。[结果]试验组导管穿刺口渗血率、更换敷料频次、导管相关性血流感染(CRBSI)的发生率和皮肤炎症反应发生率均低于对照组,平均置管时间长于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);两组导管脱出率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]无缝线固定可减少中心静脉导管并发症,延长导管安全留置时间,同时减少因缝线牵拉皮肤引起患儿的疼痛和不适感。     

小儿心脏手术后中心静脉导管渗血相关因素分析与护理对策

目的探讨小儿心脏手术后中心静脉导管渗血相关因素及护理干预措施。方法选择2016年5月至2018年5月我院治疗的心脏手术患儿89例作为研究对象,术后发生中心静脉导管渗血的患儿19例作为渗血组,未发生渗血的患儿70例作为无渗血组。比较患儿性别、年龄、导管留置时间、导管移位、穿刺前血小板水平,对上述可能的因素进行单因素分析与多因素logistic回归分析,针对危险因素制定有效护理措施。结果多因素logistic回归分析显示,小儿心脏手术后中心静脉导管渗血发生与年龄、导管留置时间、导管移位有关。结论小儿心脏手术后中心静脉导管渗血发生率较高,受患儿年龄、导管留置时间及导管移位因素影响,且不同因素能相互作用、相互影响,根据危险因素制定有效的护理措施,能降低渗血发生率。     

经颈外静脉行中心静脉置管在四肢穿刺困难及重症患者中的应用

探讨经颈外静脉行中心静脉置管在穿刺困难及重症患者中的应用效果。选取84例重症及四肢静脉穿刺困难患者,采用颈外静脉行中心静脉置管。全部置管成功,一次穿刺置管成功79例,占94%,二次穿刺置管成功5例,占6%,术后经X线摄片,导管终末端到达上腔静脉80例,颈内静脉4例,上腔静脉到位率95%,导管留置时间留置时间最长146 d,最短41 d,各种治疗顺利进行。2例发生穿刺部位渗血,无一例出现堵管、感染、滑脱等并发症。认为经颈外静脉行中心静脉置管可由护士自行操作,具有操作简便、成功率高、并发症发生率低、费用少、留置时间长等优势,特别在危重症救治及四肢血管穿刺困难患者中值得推广应用。     

肿瘤病人经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管穿刺口渗血的护理研究进展

综述肿瘤病人经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)穿刺口渗血的护理研究进展,从全方位、多因素分析肿瘤病人PICC后发生穿刺口渗血的原因,对渗血的概念、渗血的出血量判断及渗血的相关因素进行探讨,提出预防出血和护理措施以减少穿刺口渗血并发症的发生。     

6例外周静脉穿刺困难危重新生儿经腋静脉置入PICC的护理

总结6例外周静脉穿刺困难的危重新生儿经腋静脉置入PICC的护理经验.其护理要点:置管前充分评估患儿外周血管情况,适当镇痛避免患儿躁动致置管困难,根据患儿外周血管情况选择腋静脉;穿刺前做好体位摆放,掌握经腋静脉穿刺的技巧,利用导管引导导入鞘入血管的方法;做好导管置入腋动、静脉的判断及处理;做好导管固定及置管后导管维护的注意事项等.本组6例新生儿经腋静脉成功置入PICC,其中5例1次穿刺成功,1例2次穿刺成功,进针时无回血,在缓慢退导入鞘时回血,通过调整角度置管成功.置入PICC操作时间15~36 min,留置时间16~56 d,均为治疗结束拔除导管.6例新生儿留置PICC期间均无发生堵管、渗液、渗血、静脉炎、导管相关性感染、贴膜处皮肤破损等并发症.     

外周中心静脉导管故障发生原因分析及对策

目的探讨经外周留置中心静脉导管故障发生的原因,并提出相应的护理对策。方法对73例次外周中心静脉导管故障的原因进行分析。结果发生故障的主要原因有:穿刺口渗血(38.4%)、导管阻塞(26.0%)、导管移位(13.7%)、导管脱落(9.6%)、拨管(8.2%)和局部感染(4.1%)。结论经外周留置中心静脉导管发生故障的相关因素可以通过有预见性及有针对性的护理干预措施降低或避免其发生。     

集束化护理策略预防儿童中心静脉导管相关性血栓的效果观察

目的:探讨在儿童重症监护室(PICU)应用集束化护理策略预防中心静脉导管(CVC)相关性血栓的效果。方法:选取湖南省某三级甲等儿童医院PICU 2019年5月—2020年4月因留置CVC采取常规护理的195例患儿作为对照组,选取同科室2020年5月—2021年4月因留置CVC采取集束化护理策略的164例患儿作为观察组,观察两组患儿导管相关性血栓(CRT)发生情况。结果:观察组患儿CRT发生率为4.3%,低于对照组的13.3%(P<0.05);在治疗方式方面,观察组采用血液净化导致的CRT发生率低于对照组(P<0.05);在置管部位方面,观察组采用股静脉导致的CRT发生率低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组导管留置时间、穿刺次数少于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:集束化护理策略可减少PICU患儿CRT的发生,在血液净化和股静脉置管中取得的效果明显,同时也可缩短导管留置时间和减少穿刺次数。     

中心静脉置管在血液净化抢救临床急症中的应用分析

目的探讨中心静脉穿刺置管在血液净化抢救临床急症中的应用效果。方法紧急血液净化患者71例,其中急性肾功能衰竭、尿毒症并急性左侧心力衰竭和/或尿毒症性脑病、急性中毒和多器官功能衰竭患者分别为8、32、15和16例,采用中心静脉穿刺插管方式建立临时血管通路共80例次,其中股静脉65例共73例次,颈内静脉6例次,锁骨下静脉1例次,导管留置57例。结果绝大多数病例血流量满意;留置导管时间平均(23.5±6.1)d,穿刺处感染率3.8%,导管堵塞率3.8%,导管周围渗血例数占5.0%;导管留置过渡到动、静脉内瘘成熟者32例。结论中心静脉置管作为临时血管通路用以抢救临床急症,是一种简便、安全、有效的手段,并且留置导管是永久性血管通路使用前的理想方法。     

生理盐水与肝素生理盐水封管在新生儿PICC留置中的应用效果比较

目的比较生理盐水与肝素生理盐水封管在新生儿经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)的应用效果。方法选取广东省妇幼保健院PICU 2018年1~5月使用PICC的患儿120例,随机分为观察组和对照组,各60例。对照组采用生理盐水封管,观察组采用2.5 U/ml的肝素生理盐水封管。比较两组患儿的凝血功能变化、堵管情况、静脉炎、穿刺点渗血、静脉留置针留置时间。结果观察组拔针后的凝血酶原时间(APTT)、凝血酶原时间(PT)、纤维蛋白原(Fbg)、穿刺点渗血率、静脉炎与对照组比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。观察组的堵管率明显低于对照组,留置针留置时间明显长于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论2.5 U/ml的肝素生理盐水封管能够降低PICC的堵管率,延长留置针时间,且不会增加患儿的出血风险,效果较好。     

影响早产儿留置外周中心静脉管效果的因素分析

目的探讨影响早产儿留置外周中心静脉管效果的因素,提高早产儿留置外周中心静脉管的成功率。方法对2000年7月～2003年9月在我科住院的96例早产儿行外周中心静脉置管100例次,采用不同部位的血管穿刺,总结导管顶端到达上、下腔静脉的情况和分析总结导管堵塞、导管接口断裂、静脉炎发生等情况。结果本组早产儿中于出生后24h内置管10例次;出生后1～10d置管90例次,100例次早产儿导管留置4～45d。本组患儿经贵要静脉穿刺为66%,导管送达上腔静脉达93.9%高于经肘正中静脉或头静脉穿刺者。结论做好外周中心静脉血管、穿刺时间、病例和输入溶液浓度及种类的选择;掌握封管压力;严格进行无菌操作是提高早产儿留置外周中心静脉管成功的关键。     

经腋静脉穿刺中央静脉置管后上肢深静脉血栓形成的临床观察

目的探讨经腋静脉穿刺中央静脉置管后上肢深静脉血栓形成情况。方法 2007年1月-2009年12月共收治60例需行中央静脉置管的患者,所有患者均通过腋静脉穿刺行中央静脉插管,并于拔除导管后行彩色多普勒超声检查了解双侧上肢深静脉血栓形成情况。将腋静脉穿刺侧上肢作为穿刺组,对侧上肢作为对照组,进行前瞻性对照研究,将两组上肢深静脉血栓发生率进行比较。结果 60例患者中央静脉置管平均时间为（14.7±7.4）d,对照组彩色多普勒超声检查无深静脉血栓形成,穿刺组2例患者出现上肢深静脉血栓形成的症状,无肺栓塞发生,28例患者（47%）拔除的导管周围可见纤维蛋白套形成,经上肢彩色多普勒超声检查,5例患者（8.3%）腋静脉不完全栓塞,2例患者（3.3%）腋静脉完全栓塞。在中央静脉置管时间≤6d的患者中,无上肢深静脉血栓形成;置管时间在7～14d的患者中,2例（3.3%）腋静脉血栓形成;5例（8.3%）腋静脉血栓形成发生在置管时间≥15d（P〈0.01）。7例腋静脉血栓形成患者,经2～3次穿刺成功,平均穿刺时间（10±2.5）min,与无腋静脉血栓形成患者的平均穿刺所需时间（14±9）min比较,无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论经腋静脉穿刺中央静脉置管后上肢深静脉血栓形成的发生率为11.6%。     

ICU中心静脉导管相关性感染危险因素的调查研究

目的通过对ICU中心静脉置管患者感染的观察与分析,找出导管相关感染的危险因素。方法选择2009年9月至2010年3月,在ICU行中心静脉置管的患者,观察并记录其年龄、性别、置管部位、导管放置时间、穿刺点周围皮肤情况、导管性质、管腔数量、有无静脉营养等内容。护士根据患者的实际情况结合动态护理记录单实施有针对性的导管护理并及早反馈相关信息。结果患者年龄(58.1±18.9)岁,置管天数(8.76±6.89)d。行中心静脉置管的患者105例,其中77例次锁骨下静脉置管,23例次颈内静脉置管,6例次颈内静脉置入漂浮导管。中心静脉导管感染4例,置管时间分别为3、14、18、21 d,感染率为3.8%,每1 000个导管日感染率3.95。结论 ICU患者病情危重,严格掌握中心静脉置管适应症;使用中心静脉导管动态护理记录单进行导管常规评价,对症护理,缩短留置时间;严格的无菌技术是控制导管感染的关键措施。     

中心静脉导管在ICU应用中的并发症及护理

目的探讨中心静脉导管在ICU应用中的并发症及护理。方法对108例重危患者行中心静脉置管,置管后进行观察和护理。结果108例中92例（85．2％）置管顺利至正常拔管,发生并发症16例（14．8％）,其中穿刺部位渗血2例（1．8％）,穿刺点感染5例（4．7％）,导管堵塞7例（6．5％）,导管脱落2例（1．8％）。结论加强中心静脉导管的基础护理。提高护理质量可以预防并发症的发生,延长使用时间,减少患者的痛苦。     

The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the risk of central venous catheter infection with respect to the site of insertion in an intensive care unit population. The subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites were studied. DESIGN: An epidemiologic, prospective, observational study. SETTING: The setting is a well-functioning intensive care unit under a unified critical care medicine division in a university teaching hospital. Critical care medicine attendings and fellows covered on site 17 and 24 hrs per day, respectively. PATIENTS: Patients were critically ill. All patients were triaged into the intensive care unit by on-site critical care medicine fellows. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In an intensive care unit population, we prospectively studied the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites. The optimal insertion site for each individual patient was selected by experienced intensive care physicians (critical care medicine attendings and fellows). All of the operators were proficient in inserting catheters at all three sites. Confounding factors were eliminated; there were a limited number of experienced operators inserting the catheters, a uniform protocol stressing strict sterile insertion was enforced, and standardized continuous catheter care was provided by dedicated intensive care nurses proficient in all aspects of central venous catheter care.Two groups of patients were analyzed. Group 1 was patients with one catheter at one site, and group 2 was patients with catheters at multiple sites. Group 1 was the primary analysis, whereas group 2 was supporting.A total of 831 central venous catheters and 4,735 catheter days in 657 patients were studied. The incidence of catheter infection (4.01/1,000 catheter days, 2.29% catheters) and colonization (5.07/1,000 catheter days, 2.89% catheters) was low overall.In group 1, the incidence of infection was subclavian: 0.881 infections/1,000 catheter days (0.45%), internal jugular: 0/1,000 (0%), and femoral: 2.98/1,000 (1.44%; p = .2635). The incidence of colonization was subclavian: 0.881 colonization/1,000 catheter days (0.45%), internal jugular: 2.00/1,000 (1.05%), and femoral: 5.96/1,000 (2.88%, p = .1338). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection and colonization or duration of catheters (p = .8907) among the insertion sites.In group 2, there was also no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection and colonization among the three insertion sites. CONCLUSION: In an intensive care unit population, the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization is low overall and, clinically and statistically, is not different at all three sites when optimal insertion sites are selected, experienced operators insert the catheters, strict sterile technique is present, and trained intensive care unit nursing staff perform catheter care.     

Comparison of silver-impregnated with standard multi-lumen central venous catheters in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a new silver-impregnated multi-lumen central venous catheter for reducing catheter-related colonization in intensive care patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. SETTING: Ten adult intensive care units (multidisciplinary, medical and surgical, university and nonuniversity hospitals) in eight institutions. PATIENTS: A total of 577 patients who required 617 multi-lumen central venous catheters between November 2002 and April 2004 were studied. INTERVENTIONS: Intensive care adult patients requiring multi-lumen central venous catheters expected to remain in place for >or=3 days were randomly assigned to undergo insertion of silver-impregnated catheters (silver group) or standard catheters (standard group). Catheter colonization was defined as the growth of >or=1,000 colony-forming units in culture of the intravascular tip of the catheter by the vortexing method. Diagnosis of catheter-related infection was performed by an independent and blinded expert committee. RESULTS: A total of 320 catheters were studied in the silver group and 297 in the standard group. Characteristics of the patients, insertion site, duration of catheterization (median, 11 vs. 10 days), and other risk factors for infection were similar in the two groups. Colonization of the catheter occurred in 47 (14.7%) vs. 36 (12.1%) catheters in the silver and the standard groups (p = .35), for an incidence of 11.2 and 9.4 per 1,000 catheter days, respectively. Catheter-related bloodstream infection was recorded in eight (2.5%) vs. eight (2.7%) catheters in the silver and the standard groups (p = .88), for an incidence of 1.9 and 2.1 per 1,000 catheter days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of silver-impregnated multi-lumen catheters in adult intensive care patients is not associated with a lower rate of colonization than the use of standard multi-lumen catheters.     

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.     

血液透析前临时中心静脉置管117例临床分析

目的探讨中心静脉留置导管在血液净化治疗中的应用,及其并发症的防治。方法回顾2009年8月至2011年1月经中心静脉置管的血透患者,其中颈内静脉置管43例,股静脉置管74例,分析不同置管方法并发症的发生率及防治方法。结果导管留置时间3～115 d,出现的并发症:出血或血肿2例(1.71%),导管相关感染7例(5.98%),导管堵塞8例(6.84%),导管滑脱1例(0.85%),血流量差39次(3.77%),两种置管方法的血流量和透析效果均满意,而颈内静脉置管归置时间长于股静脉置管。结论中心静脉置管操作简便、并发症少,能提供稳定的血流量满足透析要求,是理想的临时血液净化通路。若患者条件许可,可优先选择颈内静脉置管。     

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.     

中心静脉长期置管在维持性血液透析患者中的应用

目的 分析中心静脉长期导管在维持性血液透析患者中的应用及其常见并发症和处理.方法 回顾性调查339例中国医科大学附属盛京医院留置的中心静脉长期导管,分析导管在置管和使用过程中的并发症及相应处理对策.结果 置管成功率100％.随访过程中35例死亡,非导管相关.余下304例导管平均留置时间20.0±15.9月.置管过程并发症：导丝送入困难2例,渗血3例,心悸4例,锁骨下静脉损伤1例,成角扭转1例.导管使用过程中并发症：感染11例,流量不足24例,管头裂缝1例.共拔管25例.结论 对于维持性血液透析患者,如果不适于建立动静脉内瘘,中心静脉长期置管可作为患者理想的血管通路,但需注意预防和处理各种并发症.     

Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis after central venous catheterization via the axillary vein

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of central venous catheter-induced thrombosis of the axillary vein. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled study. SETTING: Tertiary care university center. PATIENTS: Sixty patients in a medical-surgical intensive care unit who required central venous catheterization via the axillary vein. INTERVENTIONS: Single-lumen, silicone elastomer or polyurethane catheters were inserted for a mean duration of 14.7+/-7.4 days (range, 4-33 days). On catheter removal, bilateral upper-extremity phlebographic examination was performed in each patient. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis in catheterized arms was compared with that in uncatheterized arms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 60 patients who underwent axillary vein cannulation, one patient had clinical signs of arm vein thrombosis, but no patient had clinical sign of pulmonary embolism. There were 35 patients (58.3%) who developed positive phlebographic examinations homolateral to the catheter. Fibrin sleeves that developed around the catheters were observed in 28 patients (47%). Five patients (8.3%) had phlebographic signs of partial axillary vein thrombosis: nonobstructive clots adherent to the vessel wall and/or the catheter. Two patients (3.3%) had phlebographic signs of complete axillary vein thrombosis. No thrombosis was observed in patients with catheterizations lasting < or =6 days, two cases were observed for duration of 7-14 days, and five cases were observed for duration of > or =15 days (p < .01). In the seven patients with axillary vein thrombosis, the vessel was cannulated with fewer than three puncture attempts, and the mean duration for catheter insertion (10+/-2.5 min) was not different from that of patients with no axillary vein thrombosis (14+/-9 min). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data from the present study, we conclude that axillary vein catheterization is associated with a 11.6% frequency of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. This rate of vein thrombosis is similar to that observed after internal jugular or subclavian vein cannulation. Given the acceptable rate of this clinically important complication, axillary vein cannulation offers an attractive alternative site for catheter insertion to the internal jugular or subclavian vein in the critically ill. Because thrombosis is rare or absent in catheterizations lasting <15 days, it seems wise to withdraw axillary catheters after a maximum of 2 wks.