Sung Young Hee, Hwang Moon Sook, Lee Jee Hyang, Park Hyung Doo, Ryu Kwang Hyun, Cho Myung Sook, Yi Young Hee, Song S
Department of Clinical Nursing Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Korean Acad Nurs. 2012 Jun;42(3):443-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2012.42.3.443.
This study was done to compare the rates of hemolysis and repeated sampling in blood samples obtained by a syringe needle versus a vacuum tube needle.
A randomized, prospective study was used to evaluate the differences between the two blood sampling methods. The study group consisted of patients seen in the emergency department (ED) for blood sampling to determine electrolyte level. ED patients were randomly assigned to either the syringe group or the vacuum tube group. All blood samples were collected by experienced ED nurses and hemolysis was determined by experienced laboratory technologists. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and binary logistic regression.
One hundred forty-five valid samples were collected (74 in the syringe group versus 71 in the vacuum tube group). 5 of 74 (6.8%) blood samples in the syringe group and 8 of 71 (11.3%) in the vacuum tube group hemolyzed. Repeated blood sampling occurred for 2 of 74 (2.7%) and 3 of 71 (4.2%) in each group respectively. There were no significant differences in rates of hemolysis and repeated sampling between two groups (B=1.97, p=.204; B=2.36, p=.345).
Venipuncture with syringe needles can be recommended for ED nurses to obtain blood samples.
本研究旨在比较用注射器针头与真空管针头采集的血样中的溶血率和重复采样率。
采用随机前瞻性研究来评估两种采血方法之间的差异。研究组包括在急诊科进行采血以测定电解质水平的患者。急诊科患者被随机分配到注射器组或真空管组。所有血样均由经验丰富的急诊科护士采集，溶血情况由经验丰富的实验室技术人员判定。数据采用Fisher精确检验和二元逻辑回归分析。
共采集了145份有效样本（注射器组74份，真空管组71份）。注射器组74份血样中有5份（6.8%）溶血，真空管组71份血样中有8份（11.3%）溶血。每组分别有74份中的2份（2.7%）和71份中的3份（4.2%）需要重复采血。两组之间的溶血率和重复采样率无显著差异（B = 1.97，p = 0.204；B = 2.36，p = 0.345）。
对于急诊科护士采集血样，推荐使用注射器针头进行静脉穿刺。
