Suppr超能文献

新生儿重症监护病房的静脉穿刺过度抽血

Phlebotomy overdraw in the neonatal intensive care nursery.

作者信息

Lin J C, Strauss R G, Kulhavy J C, Johnson K J, Zimmerman M B, Cress G A, Connolly N W, Widness J A

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

出版信息

Pediatrics. 2000 Aug;106(2):E19. doi: 10.1542/peds.106.2.e19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Because blood loss attributable to laboratory testing is the primary cause of anemia among preterm infants during the first weeks of life, we quantified blood lost attributable to phlebotomy overdraw, ie, excess that might be avoided. We hypothesized that phlebotomy overdraw in excess of that requested by the hospital laboratory was a common occurrence, that clinical factors associated with excessive phlebotomy loss would be identified, and that some of these factors are potentially correctable. DESIGN, OUTCOME MEASURES, AND ANALYSIS: Blood samples drawn for clinical purposes from neonates cared for in our 2 neonatal special care units were weighed, and selected clinical data were recorded. The latter included the test performed; the blood collection container used; the infant's location (ie, neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] and intermediate intensive care unit); the infant's weight at sampling; and the phlebotomist's level of experience, work shift, and clinical role. Data were analyzed by univariate and multivariate procedures. Phlebotomists included laboratory technicians stationed in the neonatal satellite laboratory, phlebotomists assigned to the hospital's central laboratory, and neonatal staff nurses. Phlebotomists were considered experienced if they had worked in the nursery setting for >1 year. Blood was sampled from a venous or arterial catheter or by capillary stick from a finger or heel. Blood collection containers were classified as tubes with marked fill-lines imprinted on the outside wall, tubes without fill-lines, and syringes. Infants were classified by weight into 3 groups: <1 kg, 1 to 2 kg, and >2 kg. The volume of blood removed was calculated by subtracting the weight of the empty collection container from that of the container filled with blood and dividing by the specific gravity of blood, ie, 1.050 g/mL. The volume of blood withdrawn for individual laboratory tests was expressed as a percentage of the volume requested by the hospital laboratory.

RESULTS

The mean (+/- standard error of the mean) volume of blood drawn for the 578 tests drawn exceeded that requested by the hospital laboratory by 19.0% +/- 1.8% per test. The clinical factors identified as being significantly associated with greater phlebotomy overdraw in the multiple regression model included: 1) collection in blood containers without fill-lines; 2) lighter weight infants; and 3) critically ill infants being cared for in the NICU. Because the overall R(2) of the multiple regression for these 3 clinical factors was only.24, the random factor of individual phlebotomist was added to the model. This model showed that there was a significant variation in blood overdraw among individual phlebotomists, and as a result, the overall R(2) increased to.52. An additional subset analysis involving 2 of the 3 groups of blood drawers (ie, hospital and neonatal laboratory phlebotomists) examining the effect of work shift, demonstrated that there was significantly greater overdraw for blood samples obtained during the evening shift, compared with the day shift when drawn using unmarked tubes for the group of heavier infants cared for in the NICU.

CONCLUSION

Significant volumes of blood loss are attributable to overdraw for laboratory testing. This occurrence likely exacerbates the anemia of prematurity and may increase the need for transfusions in some infants. Attempts should be made to correct the factors involved. Common sense suggests that blood samples drawn in tubes with fill-lines marked on the outside would more closely approximate the volumes requested than those without. Conversely, the use of unmarked tubes could lead to phlebotomy overdraw because phlebotomists may overcompensate to avoid having to redraw the sample because of an insufficient volume for analysis. We were surprised to observe that the lightest and most critically ill infants experienced the greatest blood overdraw. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

摘要

目的

由于出生后最初几周内实验室检测导致的失血是早产儿贫血的主要原因,我们对因静脉穿刺过度抽血(即可能避免的过量抽血)导致的失血量进行了量化。我们假设,超过医院实验室要求的静脉穿刺过度抽血情况很常见,能够识别与过度抽血失血相关的临床因素,并且其中一些因素可能是可以纠正的。设计、结果测量与分析:对在我们两个新生儿特殊护理病房接受护理的新生儿为临床目的采集的血样进行称重,并记录选定的临床数据。后者包括所进行的检测;使用的采血管;婴儿所在位置(即新生儿重症监护病房 [NICU] 和中级重症监护病房);采样时婴儿的体重;以及采血人员的经验水平、工作班次和临床角色。数据通过单变量和多变量程序进行分析。采血人员包括驻新生儿卫星实验室的实验室技术员、分配到医院中心实验室的采血员以及新生儿科室护士。如果采血人员在新生儿护理环境中工作超过 1 年,则认为其经验丰富。血液通过静脉或动脉导管采集,或者通过手指或足跟的毛细血管穿刺采集。采血管分为在外壁印有标记填充线的试管、没有填充线的试管和注射器。婴儿按体重分为三组:<1 kg、1 至 2 kg 和 >2 kg。通过用装有血液的采血管重量减去空采血管重量,再除以血液比重(即 1.050 g/mL)来计算采血量。针对各个实验室检测抽取的血量表示为医院实验室要求血量的百分比。

结果

为 578 项检测抽取的血液平均(±平均标准误)量比医院实验室要求的量每项超出 19.0%±1.8%。在多元回归模型中被确定与更大的静脉穿刺过度抽血显著相关的临床因素包括:1)使用没有填充线的采血管采血;2)体重较轻的婴儿;3)在 NICU 接受护理的危重症婴儿。由于这三个临床因素的多元回归总体 R²仅为 0.24,因此将个体采血人员的随机因素添加到模型中。该模型表明,个体采血人员之间的抽血过量存在显著差异,结果总体 R²增加到 0.52。另一项涉及三组采血人员中的两组(即医院和新生儿实验室采血员)的子集分析,考察了工作班次的影响,结果表明,对于在 NICU 护理的较重婴儿组,使用无标记试管采血时,晚班采集的血样比白班采集的血样过量情况显著更严重。

结论

大量失血归因于实验室检测的过度抽血。这种情况可能会加重早产儿贫血,并且可能增加一些婴儿的输血需求。应该尝试纠正相关因素。常识表明,使用在外壁印有填充线标记的试管抽取的血样比没有标记的更接近要求的血量。相反,使用无标记试管可能导致静脉穿刺过度抽血,因为采血人员可能会过度抽取以避免因分析血量不足而不得不重新采血。我们惊讶地发现,体重最轻和病情最严重的婴儿失血过量情况最严重。(摘要截选)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验