PICC与传统股静脉穿刺置管在结直肠癌患者持续静脉化疗中的应用比较

目的比较经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管（PICC）与传统股静脉穿刺置管在结直肠癌患者持续静脉化疗中的应用。方法将80例患者随机分为对照组和实验组,对照组采用传统股静脉穿刺置管,实验组采用经皮下隧道右贵要静脉穿刺置管,比较两组患者化疗期间置管有无药物外渗、导管内回血、管道堵塞、部分脱出、血栓形成、生活不便感、静脉炎的发生。结果与对照组相比,实验组的药物外渗、导管回血和静脉炎的发生率较低,两组差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;而导管阻塞、导管脱出、不便感发生率两组差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 PICC与传统股静脉穿刺置管相比安全可靠,但有一定的并发症,需采取适当的预防措施。

Comparison of application of peripherally in-serted central catheter and conventional femoral vein catheterization in continuous intravenous chemotherapy of patients with colorectal cancer

Objective To compare the application of peripherally in-serted central catheter（PICC） and conventional femoral vein catheterization in the continuous intravenous chemotherapy of patients with colorectal cancer.Methods Eighty patients were randomly divided into the control group and the experimental group.The control group received conventional femoral vein catheterization and the experimental group received subcutaneous tunnel right basilica vein catheterization.The incidences of drug extravasation,intraductal blood return,catheter blockage,partial prolapse,thrombosis,sense of life inconvenience and phlebitis of the two groups were compared.Results The experimental group and the control group had significant difference in the incidences of drug extravasation,intraductal blood return and phlebitis（P＆lt;0.05）,but had no significant difference in the incidences of catheter blockage,partial prolapse and sense of inconvenience（P＆gt;0.05）.Conclusion Compared to conventional femoral vein catheterization,PICC is safer and more reliable,but appropriate preventative measures need to be taken to cope with some complications.