ABSTRACT
Objective:To explore the clinical characteristics, possible causes and treatment methods of anaphylactoid reactions related to PICC catheterization.Methods:A retrospective analysis of the data of 27 patients with anaphylactoid reactions in 3 933 PICC catheters from October 2018 to February 2020.Results:The incidence of anaphylactoid reactions was 0.69%(27/3 933), its clinical symptoms were mainly skin reactions, some of which were complicated with respiratory, digestive, cardiovascular system and other symptoms. There was no difference in the incidence of different genders, diagnosis, and history of allergy ( χ2 value was 2.233, 0.839, 0.027, P>0.05). The incidence of patients younger than 60 years old was higher than that of patients older than 60 ( χ2 value was 12.821, P<0.01); the incidence of two catheters with different coatings was higher than that of uncoated catheters ( χ2 value was 27.195, 84.203, P<0.01). Twenty six patients continued the catheterization after the symptoms relieved, and one patient stopped the catheterization. Conclusion:The incidence of anaphylactoid reactions related to PICC, which is more common in catheters or the stylet wire is coated. It is recommended to use a large amount of saline to flush the catheter to reduce or avoid coating materials into the blood, so as to effectively control the occurrence and severity of such complications.
ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the safety and effectiveness of power peripherally inserted central catheters (Power PICC) and double cavity central venous catheter (CVC) application in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods 458 cases were reviewed during January to September in 2014 and divided into two groups: Power PICC group (245 cases) and CVC group (213 cases) , and average retention time, successful rate of inserting catheter and the incidence of complications were compared. Results The average retention time of Power PICC group was (21.6±5.8) days which was longer than (13.1±3.4) days of CVC group (t=2.234, P 0.05). No significant difference for the total incidence of complications between two groups as 14.69% (36/245) and 19.72%(42/213)(P>0.05). No significant difference for the total incidence of complications in the operation time between two groups as 5.31% (13/245) and 4.23% (9/213)(P>0.05). But rate of catheter malposition for Power PICC group [ 2.86% (7/245) ] was higher than CVC group 0 (X2=4.428, P <0.05). Rate of the total incidence of complications in the retention time Power PICC group [ 9.39%(23/245) ] was lower than CVC group [ 15.96%(33/213)(P<0.05). And rate of catheter related blood stream infection of CVC group [3.29%(7/213)] was much more higher than Power PICC group (0)(X2=6.139,P<0.05). Conclusions Power PICC and CVC are both applicable for ICU, and Power PICC has more advantage regarding safety and effectiveness than CVC and can be one replacement for CVC.