论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨20 G静脉留置针进行桡动脉穿刺测压结果的真实可靠性。方法:选择2016年3~6月下腹部及下肢内固定手术患者45例,将其随机分为试验组22例和对照组23例,分别采用20 G静脉留置针和动脉穿刺针进行右侧桡动脉穿刺置管并进行持续有创血压(IBP)监测,同时进行右上肢连续无创血压(CNAP)监测,分别采集到196对IBP和CNAP数据。对成对的连续无创血压(收缩压和舒张压)与有创血压进行Pearson相关性分析,比较两组相关系数及CNAP-IBP的95%可信区间是否相同。比较两组患者一次穿刺成功率和血液污染发生情况。结果:试验组和对照组获得的有创血压收缩压、舒张压比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者动脉穿刺一次成功率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);试验组血液污染发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:以20 G静脉留置针替代动脉穿刺针进行桡动脉穿刺测压,其结果真实可靠,具有血液污染少、减少动脉穿刺损伤等优点。
Objective: To investigate the reliability of radial needle puncture with 20 G intravenous catheter. Methods: Forty-five patients undergoing surgery for lower abdomen and lower extremity fixation from March to June 2016 were selected. They were randomly divided into experimental group (n = 22) and control group (n = 23). 20 G intravenous catheter and arterial puncture needle Arterial catheterization and continuous invasive blood pressure (IBP) monitoring, while the right upper limb continuous non-invasive blood pressure (CNAP) monitoring were collected 196 pairs of IBP and CNAP data. Pairs of continuous non-invasive blood pressure (systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and invasive blood pressure Pearson correlation analysis, correlation between the two groups and CNAP-IBP 95% confidence interval is the same. The puncture success rates and blood contamination were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure between the experimental group and the control group (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in the success rate of arterial puncture between the two groups (P> 0.05). The incidence of blood contamination in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Radial arterial puncture manometry with 20 G venous catheter replaces the arterial puncture needle. The result is reliable and reliable. It has the advantages of less blood pollution, less arterial puncture injury and so on.