摘要
目的观察两种不同类型的经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)在长期肠外营养输液治疗或化疗患者中的实用性和费用。方法选用三向瓣膜式PICC及非三向瓣膜式PICC,两种导管的型号均为4Fr。将40例患者分为两组,每组20例,分别观察3、6个月的实用性和费用差异。使用非三向瓣膜式PICC为A组,使用三向瓣膜式PICC为B组。结果3个月后A组使用导管维护费用平均569元人民币,B组为187元人民币,两组比较差异具有显著性(P=0.014);6个月后A组导管维护费用平均为1709.4元人民币,B组为561.6元人民币,两组比较差异具有显著性(P=0.007)。3个月内两种导管维护消费如果加上导管本身的费用,差异无显著性(P=0.37),但如使用时间超过6个月,则B组仍低于A组。A组置管时出现导管异位并发症1例(5%),B组治疗后期出现1例(5%)。A组出现导管堵塞2例(10%),B组1例(5%)。结论三向瓣膜式比非三向瓣膜式PICC导管维护费用低,且使用时间越长,导管维护费用相对越低。两种导管因在不同患者特点不同,均有不同的使用价值,均可用于临床推广。
Objective To compare the practicability and cost of two types of peripherally inserted central catheter （PICC） in patients who require long-term parental nutritional support or chemotherapy. Methods We retrospectivly selected two types of catheters ： one trivalve PICC and one non-trivalve PICC. The mode types of both two catheters were 4Fr. Totally 40 patients who used PICC were equally divided into two groups： 20 patients used non-trivalve PICC （ Group A） , and 20 patients used trivalve PICC （ Group B）. The practicability and cost in these two groups were consecutively observed for 3 months and 6 months. Results The per capita cost in Group A was 569 RMB yuan in 3 months, and 187 yuan in Group B. The per capita cost of Group A was 1709. 4 yuan in 6 months, and 561.6 yuan in group B （P =0. 007）. Even when the costs of two types catheters were added to the whole cost in 3 months, there were still no significant difference. When the utility period was over 6 months, the cost in group B was still lower than group A. Catheter translocation was found in 1 patient （5%） in Group A, and in 1 patient （5%） in group B. Catheter obstruction was found in 2 patients （ 10% ） in Group A, and in 1 patient （5 % ） in group B. Conclusions Compared with non-trivalve PICC, trivalve PICC has relatively lower maintain cost, which is even obvious along with the extension of utilization time. Both types of catheters can be customized in different patients.
出处
《中国临床营养杂志》
2007年第6期371-374,共4页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition
