经皮中心静脉导管间断引流控制胸腔积液的临床研究

Clinical study of pleural effusion controlled by interrupted drainage via central venous catheter

目的 探讨利用经皮中心静脉导管间断引流控制胸腔积液的疗效及优缺点。方法 52例经皮中心静脉导管间断引流控制胸腔积液患者为研究组，同期50例采用常规胸腔穿刺抽液患者为对照组，对两组患者的胸腔积液控制时间、住院时间、胸腔穿刺次数、专项治疗费用及穿刺不良事件等方面进行观察和比较。结果研究组的人均胸腔穿刺次数、胸腔积液控制时间、住院时间、专项治疗费用及人均穿刺不良事件发生率分别为（1．06±1．30）次、（4．31±2．20）d、（9．87±2．30）d、（264．77±37．20）元和9．62％；对照组分别为（4．20±2．60）次、（9．92±3．70）d、（15．08±5．80）d、（487．62±55．56）元和38．00％。两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论 经中心静脉导管间断引流是控制胸腔积液简便经济且创伤小的有效方法，值得临床推广。

Objective To explore the therapeutic effect, advantages and shortcomings of pleural effusion controlled by interrupted drainage via central venous catheter. Methods The research group had 52 cases with pleural effusion controlled by interrupted drainage via central venous catheter, and the control group had 50 cases with pleural effusion controlled by conventional pleuracentesis. Pleural effusion disappearing time, average hospitalization time, pleuracentesis frequency, related therapy expenses and complications of two groups were observed and compared. Results The pleuracentesis frequency, pleural effusion disappearing time, average hospitalization time, related therapy expenses and per capita incidence of complications of the research group were （1.06± 1.30）times, （4.31 ± 2.20）days, （9.87 ± 2.30）days, （264.77± 37.20）yuan and 9.62% and in the control group were（4.20 ± 2.60）times, （9.92± 3.70）days, （15.08± 5.80） days, （487.62±55.56） yuan and 38.00%. The differences between two groups were particularly remarkable. Conclusion The method of pleural effusion controlled by interrupted drainage via central venous catheter is safe, convenient, economical and microtraumatic, and it is worth using more widely.