两种冲封管方式对外周浅静脉留置针留置效果分析

目的探讨两种冲封管方式对外周浅静脉留置针留置的效果。方法 2011年2月-2012年2月从江西省军区门诊部抽样选取2次/d静脉输液的患者156例,将其随机均分为常规组和对照组。常规组使用10 mL生理盐水,先使用8 mL脉冲式冲管,再使用余下的2 mL来进行正压封管;对照组使用5 mL生理盐水脉冲式冲管,再使用2 mL生理盐水肝素钠稀释液正压封管,对比两组患者的临床效果。结果常规组78例患者,发生堵管现象3例(3.85%)、平均留置时间为(84±11)h,相比于对照组的2例(2.56%)、(84±10)h,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);常规组的发生静脉炎的有9例(11.53%),相比于对照组的1例(1.28%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论两种封管方式基本上都能达到相同的临床效果,但是如若使用一管式生理盐水冲封管不仅能够大大降低静脉压的发生概率,而且也可有效控制成本。

Objective To research the effects of two different tube sealing when using peripheral venous catheter. Methods Between February 2011 and February 2012, 156 patients with intravenous infusion twice daily in our hospital were selected by sampling selection and were randomly divided into two groups, routine group and control group. Patients of routine group, tube sealing was using 10 ml physiological saline, 8 mL saline was pulsing injected, left 2 mL was injected with positive pressure. Patients of control group, first received 5 ml physiological saline pulsing injection, and then 2 ml diluted Heparin sodium injected with positive pressure. The clinical effects of patients of two groups were compared. Results Of 78 patients in routine group, 3 cases （3.85%） had tube blocked, the average indwelling time was（84 ±11） h. Of 78 patients in control group, 2 patients （2.56%） had tube blocked, the average indwelling time was（84：t：l 0） h. There was no significant differences in the incidence of catheter plugging and indwelling time between two groups（P〉0.05）. However, in routine group the occurrence of phlebitis was 9 cases （11.53%）, compared with 1 case （I .28%） in control group, and difference had statistical significance （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Tube sealing with physiological saline and diluted heparin sodium have same effects. But one syringe sealing with physiologieal sa 1 ine is superior to diluted heparin sodium at lowering the phlebitis, cost, and it is worthy of promotion.