不同靜脈采血方法導(dǎo)致溶血的比較及護(hù)理對策

侯二茹

[摘要] 目的 比較分析不同靜脈采血方法導(dǎo)致溶血及護(hù)理對策。方法 方便選取該院自2017年1—12月這段期間內(nèi)接收診治的行靜脈采血的患者120例作為臨床研究對象，其中40例采用真空采血法、40例采用采血針連接靜脈留置針采血法、40例采用注射器連接靜脈留置針采血法，各納入A、B、C組，3組在采血期間均嚴(yán)格按照護(hù)理相關(guān)規(guī)程實(shí)施護(hù)理，并在采血完成后立即將血液標(biāo)本送檢，觀察比較3組血液標(biāo)本的溶血發(fā)生情況。結(jié)果 A組中有1例發(fā)生溶血，溶血發(fā)生率為2.5%；B組中有4例發(fā)生溶血，溶血發(fā)生率為10.0%；C組中有8例發(fā)生溶血，溶血發(fā)生率為20.0%；A組的溶血發(fā)生率顯著低于B組，差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（χ2=6.487，P<0.05）；A組的溶血發(fā)生率顯著低于C組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（χ2=10.593，P<0.05）；B組的溶血發(fā)生率顯著低于C組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（χ2=6.745，P<0.05）。結(jié)論 在靜脈采血中采用真空采血法的溶血發(fā)生率最低，其次是采血針連接靜脈留置針采血法，而注射器連接靜脈留置針采血法的溶血發(fā)生率最高，但無論采用哪種靜脈采血方法，若想盡量降低溶血發(fā)生率，提高血液標(biāo)本的有效性，都需要在采血期間嚴(yán)格按照護(hù)理相關(guān)規(guī)程實(shí)施護(hù)理。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 不同靜脈采血方法；溶血；護(hù)理對策

[中圖分類號] R472 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼] A [文章編號] 1674-0742（2019）01（c）-0129-03

Comparison of Hemolysis Caused by Different Blood Collection Methods and Nursing Countermeasures

HOU Er-ru

Department of Physical Examination， the First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College， Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology，Baotou Inner Mongolia， 014010 China

[Abstract] Objective To compare and analyze different methods of venous blood sampling leading to hemolysis and nursing strategies. Methods A total of 120 patients who underwent venous blood sampling during the period from January to December 2017 were conveniently selected as clinical subjects. 40 patients were treated with vacuum blood collection and 40 patients were treated with blood collection needles for venous indwelling， using needle blood collection method， 40 cases of syringes were used to connect the venous indwelling needles， and each group was included in groups A， B， and C. The three groups were strictly in accordance with the relevant nursing procedures during the blood collection， and the blood samples were sent for inspection immediately after the blood collection was completed. Observe and compare the hemolysis of the three groups of blood samples. Results One case of hemolysis occurred in group A， and the incidence of hemolysis was 2.5%. In group B， hemolysis occurred in 4 cases， and the incidence of hemolysis was 10.0%. In group C， hemolysis occurred in 8 cases， and the incidence of hemolysis was 20.0%. The incidence of hemolysis in group A was significantly lower than that in group B （χ2=6.487， P<0.05）. The incidence of hemolysis in group A was significantly lower than that in group C（χ2=10.593， P<0.05）； the incidence of hemolysis in group B was significantly lower than that in group C， and the difference was statistically significant （χ2=6.745， P<0.05）. Conclusion The method of vacuum blood collection in venous blood collection has the lowest rate of hemolysis， followed by the blood collection method of blood collection needle and venous indwelling needle. The blood injection method of syringe-connected intravenous indwelling needle is the highest， but no matter which venous blood collection method is adopted， if you want to minimize the incidence of hemolysis and improve the effectiveness of blood specimens， you need to implement care in strict accordance with the relevant nursing procedures during blood collection.