两种冲洗液对持续行中心静脉压监测患者的临床效果观察

目的探讨两种冲洗液对持续行中心静脉压监测患者凝血功能及导管堵塞情况的影响。方法选取持续行中心静脉压监测的患者80例,按照随机数字表分为实验组和对照组,各40例。实验组的冲洗液选择0.9%的氯化钠溶液250 ml,对照组选用浓度为2.5 U/ml的肝素盐水作为冲洗液。两组分别于持续行中心静脉压(CVP)监测后,比较1 d、3 d、5 d、7 d的活化部分凝血酶原时间(APTT)、凝血酶原时间(PT)、血浆凝血酶时间(TT),同时观察两组中心静脉导管堵塞情况。结果对照组持续行中心静脉压监测后3 d、5 d、7 d的APTT、PT、TT均高于实验组,对照组持续行中心静脉压监测后1 d、3 d、5 d、7 d的APTT、PT、TT与治疗前相比均升高,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。使用两种冲洗液后导管阻塞情况比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于持续行中心静脉监测的患者,宜采用未加肝素的生理盐水作为冲洗液。

Objective To explore the impact of two flushing fluids on blood coagulation function and catheter plug of patients with continuous central venous pressure monitored.Methods Divide 80 patients with continuous CVP monitored into observation group and control group with every 40 patients, according to random number table.The observation group was given 0.9% saline injection as flushing fluid, the control group was given 2.5U/ml heparin saline as flushing fluid.Two groups were compared by APTT,PT and TT of 1 d,3 d,5 d and 7 d after continuous CVP monitoring,at the same time observing if there is catheter plug.Results The APTT,PT and TT of 3 d,5 d and 7d of the control group were significantly higher than the observation group.After therapy for 1 d, 3 d, 5 d and 7 d, the APTF, PT and TT of the control group were significantly higher（P〈0.05） .The catheter obstruction differences were not significant between the control group the observation group. Conclusion For patients with continuous CVP monitored, saline injection without heparin should be chosen as flushing fluid.