新生儿脐静脉导管与外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管的比较：一项随机对照试验

Umbilical Venous Catheter Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

作者信息

Dongara Ashish R, Patel Dipen V, Nimbalkar Somashekhar M, Potana Nirav, Nimbalkar Archana S

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Rakhial, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Gujarat 388325, India.

出版信息

J Trop Pediatr. 2017 Oct 1;63(5):374-379. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmw099.

DOI:10.1093/tropej/fmw099

PMID:28077611

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and umbilical venous catheter (UVC) in terms of success rate, complications, cost and time of insertion in neonatal intensive care were compared. Neonates requiring vascular access for minimum 7 days were included. Sample size of 72 per group was determined. Trial was registered at Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2015/02/005529). Success rates of the UVC and PICC were 68.1% and 65.3%, respectively (p = 0.724). Mean (SD) time needed for PICC and UVC insertion was 34.13 (34.69) and 28.31 (17.19) min, respectively (p = 0.205). Mean (SD) cost of PICC insertion vs. UVC insertion was 60.9 (8.6) vs. 11.9 (8.7) US dollars (p < 0.0001). Commonest cause for failure of UVC was displacement [6 (8.3%)] and that for PICC was blockage [9 (12.5%)].

CONCLUSIONS

UVC is a cheaper alternative to PICC, with similar success rate, short-term complications and time needed for insertion.

摘要

未标注

比较了在新生儿重症监护中经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管（PICC）和脐静脉置管（UVC）的成功率、并发症、成本及置管时间。纳入了需要血管通路至少7天的新生儿。确定每组样本量为72例。该试验在印度临床试验注册中心（CTRI/2015/02/005529）注册。UVC和PICC的成功率分别为68.1%和65.3%（p = 0.724）。PICC和UVC置管所需的平均（标准差）时间分别为34.13（34.69）分钟和28.31（17.19）分钟（p = 0.205）。PICC置管与UVC置管的平均（标准差）成本分别为60.9（8.6）美元和11.9（8.7）美元（p < 0.0001）。UVC失败的最常见原因是移位[6例（8.3%）]，PICC失败的最常见原因是堵塞[9例（12.5%）]。