不同采血方法进行血常规检验的临床价值分析

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Different Blood Sampling Methods for Blood Routine Test

目的 探讨在进行血常规检查时不同的采血方法的临床价值。方法 选择患者200例作为本次探究的对象,实验组所用的采血方法为静脉采血,对照组采血方法为末梢采血,并且针对采血结果进行统计分析。结果实验组PLT、MCHC、HGB、HCT、RBC、WBC分别为（227.56±76.12）×10~9/L、（318.82±19.02）g/L、（115.33±10.12）g/L、（41.28±12.19）%、（3.36±0.56）×10~9/L、（5.09±1.56）×10~9/L、而对照组则分别为（211.56±76.12）×10~9/L、（321.52±30.75）g/L、（102.12±27.98）g/L、（30.56±32.78）%、（3.58±2.42）×10~9/L、（5.97±3.78）×10~9/L,显示末梢采血的稳定性明显低于静脉采血,具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论 临床上应用静脉采血的方法进行血常规检查结果更加具有意义,值得推广应用。

Objective To explore the clinical value of different blood tests to check the blood sampling method.Methods 200 cases of patients as the object of this study, the experimental group used the method of blood sampling for venous blood, control group blood sampling method for peripheral blood, and for the statistical analysis of the results of blood collection.Results Experimental group, PLT, MCHC, HGB, HCT, RBC, WBC, respectively （227.56±76.12）×109/L, （318.82±19.02）g/L, （115.33±10.12）g/L, （41.28＋12.19）%, （3.36±0.56）×109/L, （5.09±1.56）×109/L, while the control group were （211.56±76.12）×109/L, （321.52±30.75）g/L, （102.12±27.98）g/L, （30.56±32.78）%, （3.58±2.42）×109/L, （5.97±3.78）×109/L, and the stability of peripheral blood was significantly lower than that of venous blood was statistically significant （P〈0.05）.Conclusion The clinical application of venous blood collection methods for blood routine examination results have more significance, and it is worthy of popularization and application.