Comparative study on the recanalization effective of PICC catheter by using two different methods of urokinase thrombolysis intermittently
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2907.2013.22.041
- VernacularTitle:两种尿激酶间歇溶栓法在PICC导管堵塞再通中的应用比较
- Author:
Ai-Zhen QIAO
1
;
Yu-Jing CHEN
;
Wei MA
;
Li-Na DUAN
Author Information
1. 空军总医院PICC治疗小组
- Keywords:
PICC;
Catheter blockage;
Urokinase;
Thrombolysis;
Vacuum suction;
Tee;
Injector
- From:
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
2013;19(22):2718-2721
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore and compare the effectiveness,convenience and economic cost of two different methods of urokinase thrombolysis intermittently to recanalize PICC catheter.Methods 52 thrombotic completely blocked patients with PICC catheters were chosen and randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group,each with 26 cases.Both groups used the urokinase thrombolysis intermittently methods,the control group used "tee-vacuum suction" method while the experimental group used "injector-vacuum suction" method.Operation time for 10 suctions,results of thrombolysis,recanalization time,number of consumptive materials and economic cost were analyzed and compared between two groups.Results The recanalization rate was 96.15％ in the experimental group and 92.32％ in the control group,with statistically significant difference (x2 =0.517,P ＞ 0.05).The recanalization time and economic cost of consumptive materials were respectively (26.88 ± 18.30)min and (82.25 ± 0.61)yuan in the experimental group,(79.52 ±74.35)min and (90.86 ± 4.02)yuan in the control group,and the differences were statistically significant (t =8.22,3.44,10.59,respectively; P ＜ 0.01).Nurses' operative difficulty and feeling of hand fatigue were also lower in the experimental group than in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.01).Conclusions "Injector-vacuum suction" is better than "tee-vacuum suction" as urokinase thrombolysis intermittently method.
