中华现代护理杂志
中華現代護理雜誌
중화현대호리잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MODERN NURSING
2013年
22期
2718-2721
,共4页
乔爱珍%陈玉静%马威%段丽娜
喬愛珍%陳玉靜%馬威%段麗娜
교애진%진옥정%마위%단려나
PICC%导管堵塞%尿激酶%溶栓%负压吸引%三通法%注射器法
PICC%導管堵塞%尿激酶%溶栓%負壓吸引%三通法%註射器法
PICC%도관도새%뇨격매%용전%부압흡인%삼통법%주사기법
PICC%Catheter blockage%Urokinase%Thrombolysis%Vacuum suction%Tee%Injector
目的 探讨PICC导管堵塞后用尿激酶间歇溶栓两种再通手法的有效性、便捷性和经济成本.方法 选择血栓性完全堵塞的PICC置管患者52例,随机分成对照组和实验组各26例,两组均采用尿激酶间歇溶栓,对照组用“三通-负压吸引”的手法,实验组用“注射器-负压吸引”的手法,比较两种手法抽吸10次的操作时间,溶栓结果,导管再通时间,耗材数量和经济成本,并进行统计学分析.结果 导管再通率实验组为96.15％,对照组为92.32％,差异无统计学意义(x2=0.517,P＞0.05)；PICC导管再通时间实验组为(26.88±18.30) min,对照组为(79.52 ±74.35) min,耗材所发生的直接经济成本实验组(82.25±0.61)元,对照组(90.86 ±4.02)元,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为8.22,3.44,10.59;P ＜0.01)；护士感觉实验组操作难度和手的疲劳感均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 尿激酶间歇溶栓法用“注射器-负压吸引”的手法优于“三通-负压吸引”的手法.
目的 探討PICC導管堵塞後用尿激酶間歇溶栓兩種再通手法的有效性、便捷性和經濟成本.方法 選擇血栓性完全堵塞的PICC置管患者52例,隨機分成對照組和實驗組各26例,兩組均採用尿激酶間歇溶栓,對照組用“三通-負壓吸引”的手法,實驗組用“註射器-負壓吸引”的手法,比較兩種手法抽吸10次的操作時間,溶栓結果,導管再通時間,耗材數量和經濟成本,併進行統計學分析.結果 導管再通率實驗組為96.15％,對照組為92.32％,差異無統計學意義(x2=0.517,P＞0.05)；PICC導管再通時間實驗組為(26.88±18.30) min,對照組為(79.52 ±74.35) min,耗材所髮生的直接經濟成本實驗組(82.25±0.61)元,對照組(90.86 ±4.02)元,兩組比較差異均有統計學意義(t值分彆為8.22,3.44,10.59;P ＜0.01)；護士感覺實驗組操作難度和手的疲勞感均低于對照組,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.01).結論 尿激酶間歇溶栓法用“註射器-負壓吸引”的手法優于“三通-負壓吸引”的手法.
목적 탐토PICC도관도새후용뇨격매간헐용전량충재통수법적유효성、편첩성화경제성본.방법 선택혈전성완전도새적PICC치관환자52례,수궤분성대조조화실험조각26례,량조균채용뇨격매간헐용전,대조조용“삼통-부압흡인”적수법,실험조용“주사기-부압흡인”적수법,비교량충수법추흡10차적조작시간,용전결과,도관재통시간,모재수량화경제성본,병진행통계학분석.결과 도관재통솔실험조위96.15％,대조조위92.32％,차이무통계학의의(x2=0.517,P＞0.05)；PICC도관재통시간실험조위(26.88±18.30) min,대조조위(79.52 ±74.35) min,모재소발생적직접경제성본실험조(82.25±0.61)원,대조조(90.86 ±4.02)원,량조비교차이균유통계학의의(t치분별위8.22,3.44,10.59;P ＜0.01)；호사감각실험조조작난도화수적피로감균저우대조조,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01).결론 뇨격매간헐용전법용“주사기-부압흡인”적수법우우“삼통-부압흡인”적수법.
Objective To explore and compare the effectiveness,convenience and economic cost of two different methods of urokinase thrombolysis intermittently to recanalize PICC catheter.Methods 52 thrombotic completely blocked patients with PICC catheters were chosen and randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group,each with 26 cases.Both groups used the urokinase thrombolysis intermittently methods,the control group used "tee-vacuum suction" method while the experimental group used "injector-vacuum suction" method.Operation time for 10 suctions,results of thrombolysis,recanalization time,number of consumptive materials and economic cost were analyzed and compared between two groups.Results The recanalization rate was 96.15％ in the experimental group and 92.32％ in the control group,with statistically significant difference (x2 =0.517,P ＞ 0.05).The recanalization time and economic cost of consumptive materials were respectively (26.88 ± 18.30)min and (82.25 ± 0.61)yuan in the experimental group,(79.52 ±74.35)min and (90.86 ± 4.02)yuan in the control group,and the differences were statistically significant (t =8.22,3.44,10.59,respectively; P ＜ 0.01).Nurses' operative difficulty and feeling of hand fatigue were also lower in the experimental group than in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.01).Conclusions "Injector-vacuum suction" is better than "tee-vacuum suction" as urokinase thrombolysis intermittently method.
