| Literature DB >> 27623621 |
Shuhua Wang1, Hongling Yang2, Jie Zhang2, Bin Zhang2, Tao Liu2, Lu Gan1, Jiangang Zheng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebral infarction frequently leads to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Prompt management of MCI can prevent vascular dementia and improve patient outcome. This single center randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat post-cerebral infarction MCI.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Cerebral infarction; Mild cognitive impairment; Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale; Nimodipine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27623621 PMCID: PMC5022140 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1337-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1CONSORT patient flow diagram
Baseline data
| Nimodipine alone, | Acupuncture alone, | Nimodipine + acupuncture, |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 60.6 (6.7) | 64.4 (7.7) | 65.2 (7.1) | 0.021 |
| BMI, mean (SD) | 23.2 (2.2) | 24.2 (2.2) | 23.9 (2.9) | 0.220 |
| Men, | 26 (66.7) | 30 (75.0) | 26 (65.0) | 0.584 |
| HDL (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.3) | 1.1 (0.2) | |
| LDL (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 2.5 (1.0) | 2.6 (0.7) | 2.6 (0.8) | |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 1.6 (0.7) | 1.8 (1.4) | 1.5 (0.7) | |
| Fasting blood glucose (mmol/L), mean (SD) | 6.2 (2.1) | 5.7 (2.0) | 5.7 (2.0) | |
| MoCA | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 21.1 (4.3) | 21.8 (3.5) | 20.5 (3.9) | 0.242 |
| Median | 22 | 22 | 22 | |
| Min, Max | 7, 26 | 10, 25 | 11, 25 | |
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL, low-density lipoprotein
Intra-group comparison of the effect of the therapies on MoCA score
| Nimodipine alone | Acupuncture alone | Nimodipine + Acupuncture | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| MoCA | Increase | % | MoCA | Increase | % | MoCA | Increase | % | |
| Baseline | 21.1 (4.3) | n/a | n/a | 21.8 (3.5) | n/a | n/a | 20.5 (3.9) | n/a | n/a |
| After treatment | 23.5 (4.6)a | 2.4 (2.1) | 12.7 (14.1) | 25.4 (4.1)a | 3.6 (2.4) | 16.8 (13.1) | 24.5 (3.3)a | 4.0 (2.0)b | 21.6 (14.3)c |
| At follow-up | 24.2 (4.6)a | 3.1 (1.8) | 15.8 (10.9) | 26.1 (3.6)a | 4.3 (2.3) | 20.9 (13.8) | 26.0 (2.8)a | 5.5 (2.2)b | 30.2 (19.7)c |
MoCA score increase was calculated as: MoCA score at the end of the therapy or at the follow-up – baseline MoCA score. MoCA % increase was calculated as: MoCA score increase ÷ baseline MoCA score × 100 %. arepresents significant different between the indicated score vs. the baseline MoCA score in each group. brepresents significant different between the indicated values (P = 0.002). crepresents significantly different between the indicated values (P = 0.037)
Fig. 2Comparison of MoCA score improvement and proportion of effective response of the 3 groups. a MoCA scores of the three patient groups. b Comparison of MoCA score improvement of the 3 groups. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used to compare the 3 groups; Nemenyi test was used for 2-group comparison. c Comparison of the proportion of effective response of the 3 groups. Pearson chi-square test was used. *represent significant difference, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significantly different