中国民康医学
中國民康醫學
중국민강의학
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF CHINSEE PEOPLE HEALTH
2015年
1期
27-28
,共2页
静脉留置针%头皮针%心脏介入
靜脈留置針%頭皮針%心髒介入
정맥류치침%두피침%심장개입
Intravenous indwelling needles%Scalp needles%Cardiac intervention
目的：：比较静脉留置针在心脏介入治疗中的优势。方法：选择行经皮冠状动脉介入术的患者542例为研究对象,其中男性患者385例,女性患者157例。按照不同穿刺方法,随机分为静脉留置针组(n=271)和头皮针组(n=271),两组患者的年龄、性别等比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察患者穿刺部位有无肿胀、渗漏等现象,比较静脉留置针在心脏介入治疗中的优缺点。结果：头皮针组患者的一次性穿刺成功率为96.31%(261/271),发生渗漏者为10例(3.69%)；静脉留置针组患者的一次性穿刺成功率为99.26%(269/271),发生渗漏者为2例(0.74%),两组患者一次性穿刺成功率比较,差异有统计学意义(x2=5.45,P<0.05)。结论：在心脏介入治疗中使用静脉留置针,方便安全、刺激小、便于固定、发生渗漏少,较头皮针更有优越性。
目的：：比較靜脈留置針在心髒介入治療中的優勢。方法：選擇行經皮冠狀動脈介入術的患者542例為研究對象,其中男性患者385例,女性患者157例。按照不同穿刺方法,隨機分為靜脈留置針組(n=271)和頭皮針組(n=271),兩組患者的年齡、性彆等比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。觀察患者穿刺部位有無腫脹、滲漏等現象,比較靜脈留置針在心髒介入治療中的優缺點。結果：頭皮針組患者的一次性穿刺成功率為96.31%(261/271),髮生滲漏者為10例(3.69%)；靜脈留置針組患者的一次性穿刺成功率為99.26%(269/271),髮生滲漏者為2例(0.74%),兩組患者一次性穿刺成功率比較,差異有統計學意義(x2=5.45,P<0.05)。結論：在心髒介入治療中使用靜脈留置針,方便安全、刺激小、便于固定、髮生滲漏少,較頭皮針更有優越性。
목적：：비교정맥류치침재심장개입치료중적우세。방법：선택행경피관상동맥개입술적환자542례위연구대상,기중남성환자385례,녀성환자157례。안조불동천자방법,수궤분위정맥류치침조(n=271)화두피침조(n=271),량조환자적년령、성별등비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。관찰환자천자부위유무종창、삼루등현상,비교정맥류치침재심장개입치료중적우결점。결과：두피침조환자적일차성천자성공솔위96.31%(261/271),발생삼루자위10례(3.69%)；정맥류치침조환자적일차성천자성공솔위99.26%(269/271),발생삼루자위2례(0.74%),량조환자일차성천자성공솔비교,차이유통계학의의(x2=5.45,P<0.05)。결론：재심장개입치료중사용정맥류치침,방편안전、자격소、편우고정、발생삼루소,교두피침경유우월성。
Objective:To investigate the advantages of intravenous indwelling needle in cardiac interventional therapy. Meth-ods:A total of 542 patients who were underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were included into this study, including 385 male patients and 157 female patients. According to different puncture methods, they were randomly divided into intravenous indwelling nee_dle group (n=271) and scalp needle group (n=271). The two groups had no statistically significant differences in age and difference (P>0. 05). The swelling and leakage of the puncture site were observed, and the advantages and disadvantages of intravenous indwell_ing needle in cardiac interventional therapy were compared. Results:The success rate of one-time puncture of scalp needle group was 96. 31% (261/271), and leakage occurred in 10 cases (3. 69%); while the success rate of one-time puncture of intravenous in_dwelling needle group was 99. 26% (269/271), and leakage occurred in 2 cases (0. 74%). The difference of the one-time puncture success rate between the two groups was statistically significant (x2=5. 45, P<0. 05). Conclusions: The intravenous indwelling nee_dles are convenient, safe, and easy to fix, have small stimulation and less leakage, and are superior to scalp needles in cardiac inter_ventional therapy.
