PICC与锁骨下静脉置管的比较研究

目的比较经肘部外周静脉穿剌中心静脉置管(PICC)与锁骨下静脉穿剌中心静脉置管的利弊。方法将180例肿瘤患者随机分为观察组(88例)和对照组(92例)。观察组采用PICC置管,对照组采用锁骨下静脉置管,观察两组穿剌时间、穿剌成功率、穿刺异常及不良反应发生率,以及导管留置时间等。结果观察组较对照组平均操作时间短(P<0.01);总穿剌成功率高(P<0.01);不良反应发生率低(P<0.05),其中观察组静脉炎发生率为11.36%,对照组为零,两组比较,P<0.01,差异有显著性意义;两组导管留置时间比较,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。结论PICC置管用于输液优于锁骨下静脉置管,而锁骨下静脉置管用于化疗优于PICC置管。

Comparative Study Between Puncturing Indwelling Cubital Catheterization and Subclavian Venous Catheterization

Objective To study the advantages and disadvantages of puncturing indwelling cubital Catheterization and subclavian venous catheterization in patients with tumor. Methods One hundred and eighty patients were randomly divided into an PICC group (88 cases) and a control group (92 cases). The puncturing indwelling cubital cathete-rization (PICC) was used in the PICC group and the subclavian venous catheterition in the control group. The puncturing time, the rate of success, the dwelling time of catheter and rate of adverse reactions were observed in the two groups. Results The puncturing time were shorter, the rate of success were higher and the rate of adverse reactions lower in the PICC group (P< 0.01 , P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively). The incidence of phlebitis was 11.36% in the PICC group, and it was zero in the control group (P<0.01). There was no difference in the puncturing time between the two groups (P> 0.05 ). Conclusion PICC was better than subclavian catheterization for fluid infusion, but the latter was better than the former for chemotherapy.