| 陶蕾,李伦兰,陈新华,等.植入式输液港与外周静脉置入中心静脉导管在化疗患者中长期随访效果观察[J].安徽医药,2018,22(10):2037-2040. |
| 植入式输液港与外周静脉置入中心静脉导管在化疗患者中长期随访效果观察 |
| Effectiveness of implantable venous access port and peripherally inserted central catheter in the medium tolong term follow-up of chemotherapy patients |
| 投稿时间：2017-09-27 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 导管,留置 导管插入术,外周 药物疗法,联合 随访研究 植入式输液港 |
| 英文关键词: Catheters,indwelling Catheterization,peripheral Drug therapy,combination Follow-up studies Implantable venous access port |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金青年科学基金培育计划(2016KJ17) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2132 |
| 全文下载次数: 778 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察比较植入式输液港(IVAP)与外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)应用于化疗患者的中长期效果,为血管通路的科学选择提供依据。 方法 选择2014年4月至2015年4月安徽医科大学第一附属医院272例化疗患者为研究对象,根据中心静脉置管方式不同分为IVAP组115例,PICC组157例,置管方式由患者意愿决定。分别对IVAP组和PICC组患者进行跟踪随访,直到导管取出或此项研究结束(2017年4月30日)止,比较两组患者一次性操作成功率、导管相关性并发症、舒适度。 结果 在一次性操作成功率、导管相关症状性血栓、导管相关性感染、堵管、疼痛方面,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；IVAP组湿疹、异位、总体并发症发生率(0.87%,0.00%,10.43%)均低于PICC组(12.10%,8.28%,33.76%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。IVAP组舒适度得分(6.97±0.97)分高于PICC组(5.98±0.58)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 结论 IVAP与PICC均为安全的中心静脉置管方式。在减少并发症和提高患者舒适度方面IVAP优于PICC,临床实际应用时要全面综合评估患者,合理制定置管方案,科学选择血管通路。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe and compare the medium to long term effects of implantable venous access port (IVAP) and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in chemotherapy patients,and to provide evidence for the scientific selection of vascular pathway. Methods Totally 272 patients treated with chemotherapy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from April 2014 to April 2015 were enrolled in the study.The patients were assigned into two groups according to central venous catheter placement chosen by the patients.A total of 115 patients received IVAP placement (group IVAP),while the remaining157 patients received PICC placement (group PICC).The patients in two groups were followed up until the catheter was removed or the study was completed on April 30,7.The one-time operation success rate,the catheter related complications,and the comfort level of the two groups were compared. Results Differences in one-time operation success rate,catheter related symptomatic thrombosis,catheter related infections,blockage and pain between group IVAP and group PICC were not statistically significant (P>0.05).The incidences of eczema,malposition,and overall complications in group IVAP were lower than those in group PICC (0.87% vs. 12.10%,0.00% vs. 8.28%,10.43% vs. 33.76%,respectively),and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).Mean comfort score in group IVAP (6.97±0.97) was higher than group PICC (5.98±0.58),and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions Both IVAP and PICC are safe,however,IVAP is superior to PICC in reducing complications and improving patient comfort.We should evaluate the patients comprehensively and select the appropriate vascular pathway for chemotherapy patients scientifically in clinical practice. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
