目的: 比较使用预充式导管冲洗器(Flush)、生理盐水、肝素钠生理盐水(简称肝素盐水)三种封管液对PICC导管封管的效果。方法: 将120例使用PICC导管的患者随机分成3组, 分别使用预充式导管冲洗器封、生理盐水、10 U/mL的肝素盐水封管, 比较三组的配药时间、最大流速、导管有无回血、有无静脉炎、穿刺点有无局部感染。结果: 配药时间上, Flush组为4.3±5.8 s, 生理盐水组为38.7±17.4 s, 肝素盐水组为94.2±27.1 s, 差异有统计学意义, P<0.001; 最大流速上, 三组差异无统计学意义, P=0.412; 在导管回血比较中, Flush组比生理盐水组发生导管回血的情况少, 差异有统计学意义(P=0.0494), Flush组是生理盐水组发生导管回血情况的EXP(-2.1038)=0.1220倍, 肝素盐水组和生理盐水组发生导管回血情况没有差异, P>0.05; 使用三种封管液均无静脉炎和局部感染情况发生。结论: 使用预充式导管冲洗器(Flush)对PICC导管进行封管, 可以有效节省配药时间, 有效减少PICC导管的回血; 三种封管液间对PICC导管相关性静脉炎和局部感染差异无统计学意义, 可能与本研究的局限性有关。

Objective: To compare the effection of using three kinds of locking solution, including pre filled catheter flushing device (Flush), normal saline, heparinized saline on the PICC catheter. Methods: 120 cases of wearing PICC catheter were randomly divided into 3 groups, respectively using different locking solution. In the first group prefilled Catheter flushing device saline was used, in the second group narmal saline was used, in the third group heparinized saline was used(10 U/mL), compared with the dispensing time, maximum flow rate, blood return or not, phlebitis, insertion site infection. Results: There was statistically significant difference on dispensing time, P<0.001.The dispensing time of the Flush group was 4.3±5.8 s, saline group was 38.7±17.4 s, heparinized saline group was 94.2±27.1 s; There was no statistically significant difference on maximum flow rate, P=0.412; There was statistically significant difference on blood return in comparing the Flush group with the saline group, P=0.0494, The blood return of flush group is the normal saline group, s 0.1220 times, EXP(-2.1038)=0.1220 times, while there was no difference between heparinized saline group and saline group, P>0.05; There was no phlebitis and insertion site infection occurred in three groups。Conclusion: The use of pre filled catheter flushing device (Flush) for locking PICC catheter, can effectively save the time of compounding, effectively reduce the PICC catheter blood return, and there were no significant differences on PICC catheter-related phlebitis and insertion site infection, may be due to the limitations of the research.