两种封管液在早产儿PICC应用中的效果比较

Comparison of the Effect between Two Kinds of Sealing Fluid on the Application of PICC in Premature

目的比较0.9%生理盐水与肝素稀释液在早产儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)应用中的效果,选择对早产儿最佳、最安全的封管液。方法选取2014年8月至2015年8月在早产儿重症监护病房住院期间行PICC置管术的早产儿60例,随机分为生理盐水组和肝素液组各30例,分别采用0.9%生理盐水、肝素稀释液(含肝素钠10 u/m L)脉冲式正压冲管或封管。比较两组患儿的留置时间以及静脉炎、导管堵管发生率。结果生理盐水组的静脉炎发生率为3.33%(1例),显著低于肝素液组的23.33%(7例)(P<0.05);两组的导管堵管发生率和留置时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 0.9%生理盐水冲管或封管的静脉炎发生率低,可代替肝素稀释液(含肝素10 u/m L)冲管或封管,更适宜应用于早产儿PICC中。

Objective To compare the effect between 0.9% saline and heparin diluent on the application of peripherally inserted central catheter （PICC） in premature, and to select the best and safest sealing fluid for premature. Method, 60 cases of premature with PICC in intensive care unit during the hospitalization from August 2014 to August 2015 were selected and randomly divided into saline group and heparin group, which were respectively given 0.9% saline and heparin diluent （heparin sodium 10 u/mL） for pulse positive pressure pipe washing or sealing. The indwelling time, incidences of phlebitis and pipe blockage were compared between two groups. Results The incidence of phlebitis of saline group was 3.33% （1 case）, significantly lower than 23.33% （7 cases） ofheparin group （P〈0.05）. No statistical difference was found in the incidence of pipe blockage and indwelling time between two groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusions 0.9% saline, with low incidence of phlebitis, can take the place of heparin diluent （heparin sodium 10 u/mL） for pipe washing or sealing, which is more suitable for PlCC in premature.