|
|
|
| Comparison of two sealing methods of implanted port in patients with leukemia |
| WANG Cui CAO Tingting ZHAO Bo |
| Department of Hematology, Children′s Hospital, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing 100020, China |
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare the effects of heparin sealing and saline sealing in the implantation of intravenous infusion port in children with leukemia. Methods A total of 40 children with leukemia admitted to the Department of Hematology, Children′s Hospital of Capital Institute of Pediatrics, from December 2015 to March 2017, were selected by sampling technique. All children were surgically passed through the Sytech technique in the right neck. The internal vein was implanted into the intravenous infusion port. The first 20 cases were the experimental group, and the last 20 cases were the control group. The experimental group was sealed with 10 mL of normal saline at the end of the daily infusion, and then sealed with 5 mL of normal saline. The control group was routinely pulsed with 10 mL of normal saline, and then sealed with 5 mL of heparin saline (10 U/mL). Whether there were differences in catheter occlusion after the two methods were observed. Results During continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of catheter occlusion between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion During the continuous infusion, the daily use of saline alone for the closure of children with leukemia in the port of intravenous infusion does not increase the incidence of tube blockage, which is worthy of popularization and application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 周军，张跃伟，胡东梅，等.DSA引导输液港置入术的临床应用价值[J].临床研究，2013，10（16）：138-139.
[2] 肖玲，姜傲，李茁.植入式静脉输液港相关并发症的护理对策[J].中华现代护理杂志 ，2016，22（34）：4952-4954.
[3] Li MA，Liu Y，Wang JX，et al. Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications：a single-institution retrospective analysis of 2，996 breast cancer patients [J]. Mole Clin Oncol，2016，4（3）：456-460.
[4] Freire MP，Pierrotti LC，Zerati AE，et al. Infection related to implantable central venous access devices in cancer patients：epidemiology and risk factor [J]. Infect Contr HospEpide，2013，34（7）：671-677.
[5] 刘叶.植入式静脉输液港与PICC在乳腺癌患者中应用的效果比较[J].中国实用护理杂志，2017，33（18）：1413-1416.
[6] 朱玲.优质护理在肿瘤化疗患者植入式静脉输液港中的应用[J].实用临床医药杂志，2015，19（6）：125-127.
[7] Lefebvre L，Noyon E，Georgescu D，et al. Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer：a retrospective analysis of 448 patients [J]. Supp Care Canc，2016，24（3）：1397-1403.
[8] 邹静荷，严小红，梁素岚.植入式静脉输液港在肿瘤化疗患者中的并发症原因分析及护理[J].护士进修杂志，2013， 28（14）：1329-1330.
[9] 汪洋，武佩佩.肿瘤患者应用植入式静脉输液港导管堵塞的研究现状[J].护士进修杂志，2017，32（3）：229-232.
[10] 孔秋焕，李燕儿.输液港非正常拔管原因分析及护理[J].中华现代护理杂志，2011，17（21）：2556-2667.
[11] 李全磊，颜美琼，张晓菊，等.不同PICC导管对并发症发生影响的系统评价[J].中华护理杂志，2013，48（5）：390-395.
[12] 马洪丽，杨青，杨玉珍.不同开口方式中心静脉导管内血栓发生率的比较[J].中华现代护理杂志，2012，18（4）：453-454.
[13] Gorski LA. Infusion nursing society standards of practice [J]. J Infus Nurs，2007，30（3）：151.
[14] 陈新谦，金有豫，汤光．新编药物学[M].15版.北京：人民卫生出版社，2003：525-526.
[15] Lapalu JI，Losser MR，Albert O，et al. Totally implantable port management：impact of positive pressure during needle withdrawal on cathetertip occlusion （an experimental study） [J]. J Vasc Acces，2010，11（1）：46-51.
[16] 焦俊琴，王建新，谢艳丽，等.两种不同封管方法对植入式静脉输液港再通效果的研究[J].护士进修杂志，2012， 27（17）：1541-1543.
[17] 焦俊琴，唐甜甜，孙玉巧，等.静脉输液港再通障碍41例原因分析[J].山东医药，2014，54（23）：98-99.
[18] Keir L，Coward RJM. Advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of glomerular thrombtic microangiopathy [J]. Ped Nephr，2011，26（3）：523-533.
[19] 张嘉，言克莉，魏敏，等.末端开口静脉输液港使用不同封管液封管效果比较[J].中华现代护理杂志，2016，22（31）：4565-4567.
[20] Bertoglio S，Solari N，Meszaros P，et al. Efficacy of normal saline versus heparinized saline solution for locking catheters of totally implantable long-term central vascular access devices in adult cancer patients [J]. Canc Nurs，2012，35（4）：35-42.
[21] Goossens GA，Jerome M，Janssens C，et al. Comparing normal saline versus diluted heparin to lock non-valved totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients：a randomised，non-inferiority，open trial[J]. Ann Oncol，2013，24（7）：1892-1899. |
|
|
|
