感染性休克患者使用双腔中心静脉导管不同管腔监测中心静脉压比较研究.docVIP

感染性休克患者使用双腔中心静脉导管不同管腔监测中心静脉压比较研究 　　【摘要】 目的：探究感染性休克患者使用?p腔中心静脉导管不同管腔监测中心静脉压的差别。方法：选取2013年1月-2016年1月于本院接受治疗的82例使用双腔中心静脉导管的感染性休克患者为研究对象，按照随机数表法将所有患者平均分为两组，每组各41例。观察组患者采取中心腔测量方式测量中心静脉压，对照组患者采取周围腔测量方式测量中心静脉压，比较两组患者的CVP水平、管尖端位于上腔静脉心房入口距离、治愈率以及治愈病例休克持续时间。结果：观察组患者的CVP水平为（8.85±4.11）mm Hg 　　低于对照组患者（10.35±4.19）mm Hg，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P0.05）。观察组患者导管尖端位于上腔静脉心房入口距离为（2.01±0.24）cm，对照组患者导管尖端位于上腔静脉心房入口距离为（3.03±0.19）cm，观察组患者导管尖端位于上腔静脉心房入口距离更接近2 cm，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P0.05）。观察组患者治愈36例（87.80%）高于对照组患者29例（70.73%）；观察组休克持续时间为（76.5±14.3）h低于对照组（97.4±20.1）h，两组比较差异均有统计学意义（P0.05）。结论：双腔中心静脉导管的感染性休克患者使用中心腔检测方式检测中心静脉压时CVP值较采用周围腔测量方式更准确，能够更准确的得到患者身体各项数据，临床上可以加以使用。 　　【关键词】 感染性休克； 双腔中心静脉导管； 中心静脉压 　　【Abstract】 Objective：To explore the difference in central venous pressure between two different luminal venous catheters in patients with septic shock.Method：A total of 82 patients with septic shock who were treated in our hospital from January 2013 to January 2016 were selected as subjects.All patients were divided into two groups according to the random number table，41 cases in each group.The central chamber was used to measure the central venous pressure in the observation group， and the central venous pressure was measured in the control group.The CVP levels，the distance of the canal tip at the entrance of the superior vena cava，the cure rate，and the duration of the cured event of two groups were compared.Result：The CVP levels of the observation group was （8.85±4.11）mm Hg lower than that of the control group（10.35±4.19）mm Hg，the difference was statistically significant（P0.05）.The distance of the canal tip at the entrance of the superior vena cava in observation group was （2.01±0.24）cm lower than that of the control group （3.03±0.19）cm，patients in the observation group had a catheter tip closer to the 2 cm of the superior vena cava atrial entrance，the difference was statistically significant（P0.05）.The cure of the observation group was 36 cases（87.80%） higher than that of the control group 29 cases（70.73%）；the