目的比较老年患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters,PICC)与经锁骨下静脉穿刺行中心静脉置管(Central Venous Catheter,CVC)的感染发生率,并探讨其防治对策。方法选取200例PICC和140例CVC的老年患者为观察对象,分别为PICC组200例和CVC组140例,比较两组患者置管成功率、穿刺部位和导管相关性血流感染发生情况。结果患者一次置管成功率PICC组为100.0%,CVC组为86.43%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=28.75,P〈0.05);穿刺部位感染PICC组患者7例,感染率为3.50%,CVC组患者感染31例,感染率为22.14%,发生导管相关性血流感染PICC组患者1例,发生率为0.50%,CVC组患者15例,发生率为10.71%,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(χ2=19.61,P〈0.05)。结论老年患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管安全、有效,穿刺部位和导管相关性血流感染等并发症发生率较低,可减轻患者痛苦。
OBJECTIVE To compare with the incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated infections and the incidence of subclavian vein puncture central venous catheter (CVC)-assoeiated infections and explore the prevention countermeasures. METHODS Totally 200 elderly patients of PICC and 140 elderly patients of CVC were enrolled in the study and divided into the PICC group with 200 cases and the CVC group with 140 cases, then the success rate of intubation, puncture sites, and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections were observed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS The success rate of initial intubation was 100.0% in the PICC group, 86.43% in the CVC group, and there was significant difference(x2 =28.75 ,P〈0.05). There were 7 (3.50%) cases of puncture site infections in the PICC group and 31 (22.14%) cases in the CVC group. The catheter-associated bloodstream infections occurred in 1 case in the PICC group with the incidence rate of 0.50% and in 15 cases in the CVC group with the incidence rate of 10.71%, and there was significant difference between the two groups(x2 = 19.61, P〈0.05). CONCLUSION The PICC is safe and effective for the elderly patients; the incidence of complications such as the puncture site infections and catheter-associated infections is low, which may contribute the relief of the patients' sufferings.