植入式静脉输液港与PICC在血液肿瘤患者中的临床价值

Comparative analysis of implanted venous access port versus peripherally inserted central catheter in patients with hematologic tumor

目的 比较植入式静脉输液港(VPA)与经外周静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(PICC)在血液肿瘤患者护理中的临床应用价值,为临床血液肿瘤患者化疗期间选用合适的中心静脉给药方法提供参考。方法 选取河北工程大学附属医院2021年3月至2023年2月就诊的血液肿瘤患者80例,根据置管方法不同随机分为VPA组38例和PICC组42例,比较2组并发症、舒适度、生活质量评分。结果 VPA组并发症发生率5.26%,低于PICC组的26.19%,VPA组未发现导管阻塞、血流感染、皮肤过敏等并发症,2组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);生活质量6个维度的比较中,1个社会关系功能无差异,其余5个VPA组均高于PICC组,2组生活质量评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);VPA组舒适度更高(P<0.05)。结论 相比于PICC静脉给药方法,VPA并发症少,舒适度好,更能提高患者生活质量,满足血液肿瘤患者长期治疗需求,值得临床推广。

Objective To compare the clinical value of implanted venous access port(VAP) versus peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) in the care of patients with hematologic tumor,and to provide references for patients to choose central venous administration during chemotherapy.Methods Eighty patients with hematologic tumor treated in the Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Engineering University from March 2021 to February 2023 were selected and assigned into VPA group(n=38) and PICC group(n=42) according to the catheter placement methods.The scores of complications,comfort and quality of life were compared between the two groups.Results There were no complications including ductal obstruction,bloodstream infection,skin allergy of VPA group,the incidence of complications of VPA group was significantly lower than that of PICC group(5.26% vs 26.19%,P<0.05).The difference was not statistically significant in quality of life(social function) score between groups,the scores of the five dimensions of quality of life in VPA group were significantly higher than those of PICC group(P<0.05).The comfort score of VPA group was significantly higher than that of PICC group(P<0.05).Conclusion Compared with PICC,VPA has fewer complications and better comfort,which can improve patients' quality of life and meet the long-term treatment needs of patients with hematologic tumor,and worthy of clinical promotion.