Barría R Mauricio, Lorca Pedro, Muñoz Sergio
Instituto de Enfermería, Facultad de Medicina at the Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007 Sep-Oct;36(5):450-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00171.x.
To compare the effectiveness of two methods of vascular access in newborns.
Randomized controlled trial.
Neonatal intensive care unit in Regional Hospital of Valdivia, Chile.
Seventy-four high-risk newborns.
Peripherally inserted central catheter and peripheral intravenous catheter.
Length of neonatal intensive care unit stay and incidence of sepsis and phlebitis. RESULTS/DATA ANALYSIS: There were no statistically significant differences in the length of the neonatal intensive care unit stay and in the incidence of sepsis between groups. There was a significant higher incidence of phlebitis in the peripheral intravenous catheter group.
Although there was not a significant effect of the kind of catheter on length of neonatal intensive care unit stay, the peripherally inserted central catheter is recommended because of the decreased risk of phlebitis and the decreased number of venipuncture attempts and catheters needed to complete intravenous therapy.
比较两种新生儿血管通路方法的有效性。
随机对照试验。
智利瓦尔迪维亚地区医院新生儿重症监护病房。
74名高危新生儿。
外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管和外周静脉导管。
新生儿重症监护病房住院时间、败血症和静脉炎的发生率。结果/数据分析：两组之间新生儿重症监护病房住院时间和败血症发生率无统计学显著差异。外周静脉导管组静脉炎发生率显著更高。
尽管导管类型对新生儿重症监护病房住院时间没有显著影响，但由于外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管可降低静脉炎风险，减少完成静脉治疗所需的静脉穿刺次数和导管数量，因此推荐使用。
