助手标题  
全文文献 工具书 数字 学术定义 翻译助手 学术趋势 更多
查询帮助
意见反馈
   经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(picc) 的翻译结果: 查询用时:0.394秒
图标索引 分词
外周
静脉
置入
中心
导管
picc
图标索引 历史查询
 

以下是整句翻译结果,是否逐词翻译

相关语句
  相似匹配句对
    Occluder was implanted using the anterograde venous approach.
    静脉途径置入封堵器。
短句来源
    In fifteen patients of TPN group total parenteral nutrition was provided via peripheral vein for 5 days.
    TPN组外周静脉进行 ,维持 5d。
短句来源
    Where T(R) is the hypercenter of R; Z(R) is the center of R.
    Z(R)是R的中心
短句来源
    As2O3 may interrupt angiogenesis by inhibiting VEGF production of leukemic cells.
     As。 O。
短句来源
    The blades treated by N.
    N. M.
短句来源
查询“经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(picc)”译词为用户自定义的双语例句

    我想查看译文中含有:的双语例句
例句
没有找到相关例句


Objectives: To compare the different approach for cetral venous catheterization(CVC). Methods: The disposable peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) and the single lumen central venous catheter were used. Patients needing long time iv therapy were enrolled in the study. There were 240 patients in two groups( n =120:120).In Group A, the single lumen central venous catheters were placed into superior vena cava via subclavian vein.And in Group B, PICCs were placed into superior vena cava via peripheral...

Objectives: To compare the different approach for cetral venous catheterization(CVC). Methods: The disposable peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) and the single lumen central venous catheter were used. Patients needing long time iv therapy were enrolled in the study. There were 240 patients in two groups( n =120:120).In Group A, the single lumen central venous catheters were placed into superior vena cava via subclavian vein.And in Group B, PICCs were placed into superior vena cava via peripheral vein. Results: ①Success rate: 97.5%(117/120) for PICC and 100%(120/120) for CVC. ②No pneumothorax or hemothorax in PICC group while 1 case (0.83%) of pneumothorax was found in CVC group. ③Catheter translocation happened in 10 cases (8.33%) in PICC group and 1 case (0.83%) in CVC group. ④Phlebitis was noticed in 2 cases (1.67%) in PICC group but none in CVC group. ⑤Catheter occlusion rate: 14.17% for PICC and 7.5% for CVC.Conclusions: PICC is safe and can partly substitute the central catheterization via subclavian venous access.

目的 :对比两种中心静脉导管的置管方法特点及并发症。 方法 :采用一次性经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管 (PICC)和单腔中心静脉导管 (CVC)。观察 2 4 0例病人中 ,CVC组 1 2 0例 ,应用单腔中心静脉导管行锁骨下静脉穿刺至上腔静脉 ;PICC组 1 2 0例 ,应用一次性导管经外周静脉置入中心静脉。 结果 :①置管成功率 :PICC组1 1 7/ 1 2 0 ,占 97.5 % ;CVC组 1 2 0 / 1 2 0 ,占 1 0 0 %。②气、血胸并发症 :PICC组无血气胸 ;CVC组 1例 ,占 0 .83%。③导管移位 :PICC组 1 0例 ,占 8.33% ;CVC组 1例 ,占 0 .83%。④静脉炎发生率 :PICC组 2例 ,占 1 .6 7% ;CVC组无一例发生。⑤导管堵塞 :PICC组 1 7例 ,占 1 4 .1 7% ;CVC组 9例 ,占 7.5 %。 结论 :PICC置管是一种安全、有效的中心静脉置管方法 ,部分治疗可取代锁骨下静脉穿刺导管 ,在临床上可达到与CVC相同的目的

Objective To assess the safety in the very low birth weight infants with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC).Methods Seventy-six VLBW infants were randomly divided into PICC group or peripherally intravenous catheters(PIV) group.PICC group was compared with PIV group in phlebitis,local infection,bacteremia or fungemia,venous puncture times and catheter days.Results Phlebitis was found in 3 cases of PICC group whereas in 2 cases of PIV group,local infection occurred in 2 cases of PICC group whereas...

Objective To assess the safety in the very low birth weight infants with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC).Methods Seventy-six VLBW infants were randomly divided into PICC group or peripherally intravenous catheters(PIV) group.PICC group was compared with PIV group in phlebitis,local infection,bacteremia or fungemia,venous puncture times and catheter days.Results Phlebitis was found in 3 cases of PICC group whereas in 2 cases of PIV group,local infection occurred in 2 cases of PICC group whereas in 3 caes of PIV group.There were 3 cases of bacteremia or fungemia in PICC group,but 7 cases in PIV group (P>0.05).There was significantly difference in venous puncture times [(1.37±0.20) vs (10.78±1.18),P<0.01].Conclusion PICC can be safely and effectively used in VLBWI,it can significantly reduce the times of venous punctrue and not increase the incidence of phlebitis,local infection and bacteremia or fungemia.

目的 评估经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管 (PICC)在极低体重儿 (VLBWI)使用中的安全性。方法 将收住NICU的 76例VLBWI随机分为PICC组与周围静脉穿刺组 (PIV组 ) ,分别观察比较两组患儿静脉炎、局部感染及全身感染的发生率及穿刺次数、补液天数。结果 PICC组与PIV组在性别、孕龄 (w)、体重 (g) ,补液天数 (d)均无显著性差别 (P >0 0 5 )。PICC组与PIV组穿刺次数分别为 1 37(1~ 3)次及 10 76 (3~ 18)次 ,有显著性差异 (P <0 0 1) ,而感染率 :PICC组 :全身感染 3/38例(7 89% ) ,静脉炎 3/38例 (7 89% ) ,穿刺部位局部感染 2 /38例 (5 2 6 % ) ;PIV组 :全身感染 7/38例(18 4 2 % ) ,静脉炎 2 /38例 (5 2 6 % ) ,穿刺部位局部感染 3/38例 (7 89% ) ,均无显著性差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论 PICC可安全、有效地应用于VLBWI ,可显著减少静脉穿刺次数 ,其感染率也未见明显提高

Objective To set up a good venous path for patients with tumour to decrease local toxic reaction by comparison of three injection methods. Methods One hundred and forty three patients with leukaemia were randomly divided into three groups according to injection methods of DA chemotherapy: the general group (injection through peripheral vein), the improved group (system nursing measures were performed before and after injection through peripheral vein), and the parenterrally inserted central catheter (PICC) group....

Objective To set up a good venous path for patients with tumour to decrease local toxic reaction by comparison of three injection methods. Methods One hundred and forty three patients with leukaemia were randomly divided into three groups according to injection methods of DA chemotherapy: the general group (injection through peripheral vein), the improved group (system nursing measures were performed before and after injection through peripheral vein), and the parenterrally inserted central catheter (PICC) group. Local toxicity reactions including tissue leaky damage and venulitis were compared among these three groups. Results There were significant differences among these three groups in terms of tissue leaky damage and venulitis. Conclusion PICC is the first choice for patients who accepted DA chemotherapy because it can decrease the occurrence of tissue leaky damage and venulitis.

目的通过比较三种静脉注射方法,为化学治疗(柔红霉素+阿糖胞苷)的肿瘤患者选择良好静脉通道,探讨避免或减少化疗药物产生局部毒性反应的方法。方法将143例急性白血病患者随机分为三组,常规组(经外周静脉直接输注化疗药物)46例,改良组(经外周静脉直接输注化疗药物前后采取系统的预防护理措施)48例,经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC)49例为PICC组。比较三组患者行化学治疗静脉给药过程中,组织渗漏性损伤及静脉炎等局部毒性反应的情况。结果三组组织渗漏性损伤及静脉炎发生率两两比较,有统计学意义(均P﹤0.05),改良组组织渗漏性损伤、化疗性静脉炎发生率明显低于常规组,而PICC组又明显低于改良组。结论接受化学治疗的患者应用PICC途径输注最为安全可靠,能有效控制组织渗漏性损伤及静脉炎等局部毒性反应的发生。

 
<< 更多相关文摘    

 


 

CNKI主页设CNKI翻译助手为主页 | 收藏CNKI翻译助手 | 广告服务 | 英文学术搜索
版权图标  2008 CNKI-中国知网
京ICP证040431号 互联网出版许可证 新出网证(京)字008号
北京市公安局海淀分局 备案号:110 1081725
版权图标 2008中国知网(cnki) 中国学术期刊(光盘版)电子杂志社