Orr Marsha Evans
CreativEnergy, LLC, 3229 East Elmwood, Mesa, Arizona 85213, USA.
Nutr Clin Pract. 2002 Apr;17(2):99-104. doi: 10.1177/011542650201700299.
The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has dramatically increased since first being used for IV therapy in the 1980s. Currently, sales of PICCs are second only to acute care central venous catheters and exceed all other types of long-term venous access devices. The use of PICCs has also increased dramatically in the home care setting. A number of studies have examined the incidence of PICC complications in comparison to other central venous access devices. Although complications differ, most reports have concluded that the type and rate of PICC complications compare favorably with other access devices in the short-term; however, dwell times beyond a few weeks have been associated with decreased complication-free days and lower device survivability rates. The PICC seems to be most appropriate for acute care or short-term home care use and may not be the ideal central venous access device when the need for long-term access is anticipated.
自20世纪80年代首次用于静脉输液治疗以来,外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)的使用量急剧增加。目前,PICC的销量仅次于急性护理中心静脉导管,超过了所有其他类型的长期静脉通路装置。PICC在家庭护理环境中的使用也大幅增加。一些研究已经对外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)与其他中心静脉通路装置相比的并发症发生率进行了研究。尽管并发症有所不同,但大多数报告得出结论,PICC并发症的类型和发生率在短期内与其他通路装置相比具有优势;然而,留置时间超过几周与无并发症天数减少和装置存活率降低有关。PICC似乎最适合急性护理或短期家庭护理使用,当预计需要长期通路时,可能不是理想的中心静脉通路装置。