中国实用护理杂志
中國實用護理雜誌
중국실용호리잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL NURSING
2010年
14期
36-38
,共3页
中心静脉导管%植入式中心静脉输液泵%白血病%患儿%院内感染
中心靜脈導管%植入式中心靜脈輸液泵%白血病%患兒%院內感染
중심정맥도관%식입식중심정맥수액빙%백혈병%환인%원내감염
Peripherally inserted central catheter%Venous port acess%Leukemia%Children%Nosocomial infection
目的 探讨白血病患儿治疗期间使用中心静脉导管(PICC)与植入式中心静脉输液泵(VPA)2种输液方式在院内感染方面的异同.方法 2005年1月至2009年9月确诊为白血病的患儿60例,其中男35例,女25例.年龄2.0～16.5岁,平均年龄10.2岁,住院治疗期间使用PICC与VPA 2种输液方式治疗,PICC组42例,住院202例次;VPA组18例,住院109例次.观察记录治疗期间所有患儿感染相关的症状及体征,常见病原菌及预后,汇总数据对照分析.结果 PICC组感染相关指标如体温升高发生率较VPA组高,而C-反应蛋白升高发生率较VPA组低,差异显著,白细胞下降发生率2组比较无显著差异.感染率:PICC组为38.61%,VPA组为28.44%,2组比较差异显著,各感染部位分布2组比较有显著差异.2组痰培养、血培养主要病原菌比较无显著差异.结论 2种置管方式输液均可用于治疗白血病患儿的化疗,VPA在白血病患儿中的应用院内感染的发生率较PICC低,VPA对白血病患儿化疗时可能是一种更为安全的输液置管方式.
目的 探討白血病患兒治療期間使用中心靜脈導管(PICC)與植入式中心靜脈輸液泵(VPA)2種輸液方式在院內感染方麵的異同.方法 2005年1月至2009年9月確診為白血病的患兒60例,其中男35例,女25例.年齡2.0～16.5歲,平均年齡10.2歲,住院治療期間使用PICC與VPA 2種輸液方式治療,PICC組42例,住院202例次;VPA組18例,住院109例次.觀察記錄治療期間所有患兒感染相關的癥狀及體徵,常見病原菌及預後,彙總數據對照分析.結果 PICC組感染相關指標如體溫升高髮生率較VPA組高,而C-反應蛋白升高髮生率較VPA組低,差異顯著,白細胞下降髮生率2組比較無顯著差異.感染率:PICC組為38.61%,VPA組為28.44%,2組比較差異顯著,各感染部位分佈2組比較有顯著差異.2組痰培養、血培養主要病原菌比較無顯著差異.結論 2種置管方式輸液均可用于治療白血病患兒的化療,VPA在白血病患兒中的應用院內感染的髮生率較PICC低,VPA對白血病患兒化療時可能是一種更為安全的輸液置管方式.
목적 탐토백혈병환인치료기간사용중심정맥도관(PICC)여식입식중심정맥수액빙(VPA)2충수액방식재원내감염방면적이동.방법 2005년1월지2009년9월학진위백혈병적환인60례,기중남35례,녀25례.년령2.0～16.5세,평균년령10.2세,주원치료기간사용PICC여VPA 2충수액방식치료,PICC조42례,주원202례차;VPA조18례,주원109례차.관찰기록치료기간소유환인감염상관적증상급체정,상견병원균급예후,회총수거대조분석.결과 PICC조감염상관지표여체온승고발생솔교VPA조고,이C-반응단백승고발생솔교VPA조저,차이현저,백세포하강발생솔2조비교무현저차이.감염솔:PICC조위38.61%,VPA조위28.44%,2조비교차이현저,각감염부위분포2조비교유현저차이.2조담배양、혈배양주요병원균비교무현저차이.결론 2충치관방식수액균가용우치료백혈병환인적화료,VPA재백혈병환인중적응용원내감염적발생솔교PICC저,VPA대백혈병환인화료시가능시일충경위안전적수액치관방식.
Objective To investigate the incidence of nosocomial infection of placing peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and venous port acess(VPA) in children with leukemia. Methods 60 cases with leukemia were treated in our hospital from January 2005 to September 2009.35 cases were mail, 25 cases were femail.Their ages ranged from 2.0 to 16.5 years old.42 cases fell to the PICC group, hospital-ization for 202 times, 18 cases belonged to the VPA group, hospitalization for 109 times. The incidence of infection in hospital, infection site, common pathogens and prognosis of two groups were analyzed retro-spectively.Results The incidence of fever and increasing of C-reactive protein of the PICC group were significantly lower than those of the VPA group. There was no difference of the incidence of white blood cells decreasing between two groups. The incidence of infection in hospital in the PICC group was 38.61%, higher than 28.44% of the VPA group. Their difference was significant. There was significant difference of the distribution of infection between two groups. There was no significant difference of the major pathogens of sputum culture and blood culture between two groups. Conclusions Using venous port acess(VPA) could reduce the incidence of infection in hospital compared using peripherally insertied central catheters in children with leukemia, so venous port acess( VPA ) may be safer.
