摘要
目的 Meta分析植入式手臂输液港与胸壁输液港常见并发症,比较手臂输液港与胸壁输液港的安全性。方法检索中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、维普期刊资源整合服务平台、PubMed、Embase、CINAHL中关于患者应用手臂输液港与胸壁输液港并发症比较的随机对照试验、队列研究或设计较好的病例对照试验。使用Review Manager 5.3软件对结局指标进行Meta分析与描述。结果最终共纳入9项研究,均为队列研究,包括2 511例研究对象。Meta分析结果显示,手臂输液港血栓发生率与胸壁输液港相比,差异具有统计学意义[OR=0.51,95%CI(0.28,0.92),P=0.03];感染发生率[OR=0.85,95%CI(0.53,1.38),P=0.52]、堵管发生率[OR=1.05,95%CI(0.37,3.01),P=0.92]、败血症发生率[OR=0.44,95%CI(0.10,1.87),P=0.27]、皮肤裂开发生率[OR=0.28,95%CI(0.07,1.17),P=0.08]与胸壁输液港相比,差异无统计学意义。结论手臂输液港血栓发生率较胸壁输液港低,但使用手臂输液港不能降低感染、堵管、败血症、皮肤裂开的发生率。
Objective To analyze common complications of arm port and chest port using meta-analysis and to investigate the safety of arm port. Methods Randomized controlled trials,cohort studies and well-designed casecontrol trials published in CNKI,Wanfang,VIP,PubMed,CINAHL and Embase regarding complication comparison between arm port and chest port were searched. Review Manager 5.3 software was applied to analyze outcome indicators. Results Nine retrospective cohort studies and 2511 patients were included. The results of recta-analysis showed that the incidence of thrombosis in arm port group was lower than that in chest port group,and the difference was statistically significant [ OR=0.51,95% CI （0.28,0.92）,P=0.03 ]. However, there was no significant difference in incidence of infection[OR=0.85,95%CI（0.53,1.38）,P=0.52],ineidence of obstruction[OR=1.05,95%CI（0.37,3.01）, P=0.92 ], incidence of sepsis [ OR =0,44,95% CI （0.10,1.87）,P=0.27 ],incidence of skin incision [ OR =0.28,95% CI （0.07,1.17）,P=0.08]. Conclusion The incidence of thrombosis in arm port was lower than that in chest port,and there was no obvious advantage in the incidence of infection ,obstruction ,sepsis and skin incision.
出处
《中华护理杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2018年第3期352-358,共7页
Chinese Journal of Nursing
