经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管与植入式静脉输液港在肺癌患者化疗中的应用效果比较

Peripherally inserted central catheter versus venous port access for treatment of lung cancer patients with chemotherapy

目的对比经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(PICC)与植入式静脉输液港(VPA)在肺癌患者化疗中的应用疗效。方法选择住院肺癌患者120例,随机分为PICC组60例和VPA组60例。比较2组一次性置管成功率、留置时间、导管相关并发症发生率及患者生活质量评分。结果 VPA组一次性置管成功率为100%,与PICC组的96.67%相比无显著差异(P>0.05);VPA组留置时间1年以上的患者为52例,PICC组为32例(P<0.05);VPA组导管相关并发症发生率为1.3%,显著低于PICC组的5.6%(P<0.05)。VPA组生活质量评分B级以上患者42例(70%),多于PICC组的28例(46.67%)(P<0.05)。结论 VPA组在留置时间、并发症、生活质量等方面较PICC组有明显的优势(P<0.05)。如不考虑价格因素,VPA应作为肺癌患者静脉输液的首选通路。

Objective To compare the therapeutic effect between peripherally inserted central catheter （PICC） and venous port access （VPA） on treatment of lung cancer patients with chemotherapy. Methods A total of 120 patients with lung cancer were randomly divided into PICC group and VPA group, 60 cases in each group. The onetime success rate of catheterization, indwelling time, incidence rate of catheter -- related complications and scores of quality of life were compared between two groups. Results The success rate of the VPA group was 100 %, which was no significant difference with 96.67 % in the PICC group （P 〉 0.05）. The number of patients with indwelling time over one year in the VPA group was 52, which was larger than 32 in the PICC group （P （0.05）. The incidence rate of catheter - related complications in the VPA group was 1.3 %, which was significantly lower than 5.6 % in the PICC group （P 〈 0.05）. The number of patients with score of quality of life over B grade was 42 （70%） in the VPA group, which was more than 28 （46.67%） in the PICC group （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion The VPA group is significantly better than the PICC group in the indwelling time, complications and quality of life （P〈0.05）. If the price factor is not considered, VPA should be the first choice for the patients with lung cancer.