| Literature DB >> 32831874 |
Jun Jiang1, Qingbao Chi2, Yuting Wang1, Xue Jin1, Shui Yu1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) always have emotional implications. As the branch of traditional Chinese medicine, Five-Animal Frolics Exercise (FAE) is a popular mind-body exercise in China and shown to improve emotional wellbeing. AIM: We aimed to explore the effects of FAE on the emotional disorders of CHD patients.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32831874 PMCID: PMC7428969 DOI: 10.1155/2020/6937158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram. EG, the patients received FAE. CG, the patients received routine nursing care. The follow-up was three months.
Clinical baseline characteristics between two groups.
| Parameters | EG ( | CG ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male) | 24 (40%) | 24 (40%) | — |
| Age (yr) | 61.00 ± 8.93 | 63.10 ± 10.04 | 0.763 |
| Combined with hypertension | 45 (75%) | 42 (70%) | 0.816 |
| Combined with diabetes | 24 (40%) | 24 (40%) | — |
| Combined with tuberculosis | 57 (95%) | 51 (85%) | 0.615 |
| Abnormal ECG check | 33 (55%) | 36 (60%) | 0.805 |
| Total cholesterol | 3.89 ± 1.32 | 3.82 ± 1.03 | 0.965 |
| Triglyceride | 1.50 ± 0.92 | 1.82 ± 0.78 | 0.328 |
| Low-density lipoprotein | 2.04 ± 1.06 | 1.91 ± 0.63 | 0.877 |
| Fasting blood sugar | 6.60 ± 1.40 | 7.28 ± 2.62 | 0.372 |
| BNP | 87.02 ± 79.40 | 99.96 ± 138.24 | 0.868 |
| 6-minute walk test | 527.78 ± 49, 77 | 539.25 ± 57.59 | 0.135 |
| Brog feels the score | 11.89 ± 1.61 | 11.25 ± 1.68 | 0.409 |
Comparison of four anxiety depression scales between two groups.
| Parameters and time points | EG | CG |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAMD | 0 month | 12.0 (10.0, 14.0) | 11.5 (8.3, 14.8) | 0.908 |
| 1 month | 7.5 (5.3, 10.0) | 9.5 (7.0, 12.0) | ||
| 3 months | 5.0 (4.0, 6.0) | 8.0 (5.3, 10.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 4.0 (2.3, 6.8)# | 2.0 (0.3, 3.8) | 0.015 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 7.0 (5.3, 8.8)# | 3.0 (2.3, 5.8) | 0.002 | |
|
| ||||
| HAMA | 0 month | 17.0 (15.0, 19.0) | 15.0 (12.0, 17.0) | 0.095 |
| 1 month | 10.0 (7.0, 12.0) | 12.0 (10.0, 14.0) | ||
| 3 months | 5.5 (5.0, 7.8)# | 9.0 (7.0, 12.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 8.0 (5.3, 9.0)# | 2.0 (2.0, 4.0) | <0.001 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 11.0 (9.0, 12.0)# | 5.0 (4.0, 7.8) | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| SDS | 0 month | 41.0 (39.3, 47.5) | 40.5 (35.3, 49.0) | 0.770 |
| 1 month | 34.0 (31.0, 36.0) | 35.0 (32.0, 44.3) | ||
| 3 months | 30.0 (29.3, 32.0)# | 34.0 (30.3, 40.8)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 7.0 (5.0, 10.0)# | 3.0 (1.0, 6.8) | 0.012 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 10.0 (8.3, 14.8)# | 5.5 (3.3, 8.0) | 0.005 | |
|
| ||||
| SAS | 0 month | 50.0 (51.0, 55.5) | 50.0 (50.0, 52.0) | 0.106 |
| 1 month | 41.0 (34.0, 43.5) | 45.0 (39.5, 48.8) | ||
| 3 months | 32.0 (31.0, 37.5)# | 40.0 (32.8, 44.3)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 14.5 (10.3, 18.0)# | 4.5 (3.0, 8.8) | <0.001 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 20.0 (15.3, 22.8)# | 8.5 (6.3, 17.0)# | <0.001 | |
Note. Amounts of change (I) is the comparison between 1 month and 0 month, and the amounts of change (II) is the comparison between 3 months and 0 month. The comparison between the test group and the control group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). #There were significant differences between the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05).
Comparison of PSQI between two groups.
| EG | CG |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 month | 14.0 (10.3, 15.0) | 11.0 (9.0, 13.8) | 0.100 |
| 1 month | 9.0 (6.5, 11.8) | 9.0 (7.3, 12.0) | |
| 3 months | 7.0 (5.0, 7.8)# | 8.0 (6.0.1 5)# | |
| Amounts of change (I) | 3.0 (1.3, 6.8)# | 1.0 (0.0, 1.8) | 0.003 |
| Amounts of change (II) | 6.0 (4.0, 8.0) | 2.5 (1.0, 4.0)# | 0.001 |
Note. Amounts of change (I) is the comparison between 1 month and 0 month, and the amounts of change (II) is the comparison between 3 months and 0 month. The comparison between the test group and the control group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). #There were significant differences between the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05).
Comparison of curative effect of PSQI.
| Groups | Therapeutic results | Total effective |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healing | Significant effective | Effective | Invalid | |||
| EG | 7 (35%) | 13 (65%) | 100%# | <0.001 | ||
| CG | 1 (5%) | 2 (10%) | 6 (30%) | 11 (55%) | 45% | |
Note. The comparison between the test group and the control group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). #There were significant differences between the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05).
The comparison of life quality of SF-36 between two groups.
| Parameters and time points | EG | CG |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning | 0 month | 88.0 (84.0, 100.0) | 85.0 (85.0, 95.0) | 0.430 |
| 1 month | 94.0 (88.0, 100.0) | 85.0 (80.0, 95.0) | ||
| 3 months | 100.0 (100.0, 100.0)# | 87.5 (81.3, 95.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 3.8 (0.0, 5.0)# | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.295 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 5.0 (0.0, 10.0) | 0.2 (0.0, 5.0) | 0.003 | |
|
| ||||
| Physical role functioning | 0 month | 12.9 (0.0, 18.8) | 11.3 (0.0, 75.0) | 0.925 |
| 1 month | 25.0 (25.0, 50.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 87.5) | ||
| 3 months | 50.0 (50.0, 100.0)# | 37.5 (6.3, 100.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 21.0 (0.0, 25.0)# | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.049 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 50.0 (25.0, 50.0)# | 12.5 (0.0, 43.8) | 0.003 | |
|
| ||||
| Body pain | 0 month | 84.0 (75.0, 100.0) | 79.0 (74.0, 100.0) | 0.042 |
| 1 month | 95.0 (88.0, 100.0) | 84.0 (74.0, 100.0) | ||
| 3 months | 92.0 (74.0, 100.0)# | 89.0 (76.5, 100.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 2.0 (0.0, 9.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.109 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 3.1 (0.0, 15.0) | 3.3 (0.0, 26.0) | 0.274 | |
|
| ||||
| General health perceptions | 0 month | 30.0 (25.0, 45.0) | 32.5 (20.0, 40.0) | 0.579 |
| 1 month | 45.0 (26.8, 53.8) | 32.5 (25.0, 45.0) | ||
| 3 months | 56.0 (45.0, 70.3)# | 52.5 (35.0, 67.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 3.6 (0.0, 13.8) | 1.2 (0.0, 3.8) | 0.637 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 20.0 (5.5, 30.0) | 17.0 (5.0, 30.3) | 0.949 | |
|
| ||||
| Vitality | 0 month | 45.0 (41.0, 50.0) | 55.0 (45.0, 65.0) | 0.117 |
| 1 month | 55.0 (50.0, 68.8) | 55.0 (45.0, 65.0) | ||
| 3 months | 62.5 (55.0, 70.0)# | 57.5 (51.3, 73.8)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 10.0 (0.0, 18.8) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | ≤0.001 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 15.0 (5.3, 23.8) | 5.0 (0.0, 10.0) | 0.073 | |
|
| ||||
| Social functioning | 0 month | 88.0 (75.0, 100.0) | 88.0 (65.3, 100.0) | 0.610 |
| 1 month | 88.0 (88.0, 100.0) | 88.0 (78.3, 100.0) | ||
| 3 months | 100.0 (100.0, 100.0)# | 100.0 (100.0, 100.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 5.0 (0.0, 12.8) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.172 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 12.0 (0.0, 13.0) | 12.0 (0.0, 34.0) | 0.728 | |
|
| ||||
| Emotional wellbeing | 0 month | 0.0 (0.0, 91.8) | 0.0 (0.0, 100.0) | 0.942 |
| 1 month | 50.0 (33.0, 100.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 100.0) | ||
| 3 months | 100.0 (67.0, 100.0)# | 33.0 (8.3, 100.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 23.0 (0.0, 33.0)# | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.012 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 67.0 (8.3, 100.0)# | 0.0 (0.0, 33.0) | 0.003 | |
|
| ||||
| Mental health | 0 month | 50.0 (42.0, 60.0) | 48.0 (42.5, 56.0) | 0.073 |
| 1 month | 60.0 (49.0, 68.0) | 48.0 (42.5, 55.8) | ||
| 3 months | 68.0 (60.0, 72.0)# | 56.0 (48.0, 64.0)# | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 8.0 (0.0, 18.5)# | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.001 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 17.0 (1.0, 24.0) | 4 (−0.8, 13.5) | 0.062 | |
|
| ||||
| Perception of changes in health | 0 month | 25.0 (25.0, 25.0) | 25.0 (25.0, 50.0) | 0.666 |
| 1 month | 37.5 (25.0, 50.0) | 25.0 (25.0, 50.0) | ||
| 3 months | 50.0 (25.0, 50.0)# | 50.0 (25.0, 50.0) | ||
| Amounts of change (I) | 0.0 (0.0, 25.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.322 | |
| Amounts of change (II) | 15.0 (0.0, 25.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 25.0) | 0.002 | |
Note. Amounts of change (I) is the comparison between 1 month and 0 month, and the amounts of change (II) is the comparison between 3 months and 0 month. The comparison between the test group and the control group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). #There were significant differences between the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Relative levels of miR-124 and miR-135 in the patients with coronary heart disease. EG and FAE were used. CG, a control group. n = 20 for each group. The statistical different was significant if p < 0.05.
Figure 3Pearson correlation coefficient analysis of the relationship between relative levels of miR-124 and miR-135 and the values of SAS and SDS. (a) The relationship between relative levels of miR-124 and the scores of SAS. (b) The relationship between relative levels of miR-135 and the scores of SAS. (c) The relationship between relative levels of miR-124 and the scores of SDS. (d) The relationship between relative levels of miR-135 and the scores of SDS. There is a strong positive relationship if rho value falls within 0.5 and 1. There is a strong negative relationship if rho value falls within −0.5 and −1.