| Literature DB >> 34712347 |
Yunjiao Sheng1, Hong Qiu2, Sijuan Chen3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to explore the clinical effect of Danqi Buxin decoction on chronic heart failure (CHF) with yang deficiency and its effect on cardiac function and life quality of patients.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34712347 PMCID: PMC8548098 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7297361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
Comparison of demographic characteristics between the two groups.
| Items | Treatment group | Reference group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education level | ||||
| Primary school | 10 (18.87) | 11 (20.75) | 0.059 | 0.807 |
| Junior high school | 27 (50.94) | 30 (56.60) | 0.342 | 0.559 |
| Senior high school | 11 (20.75) | 9 (16.98) | 0.247 | 0.620 |
| University and above | 5 (9.43) | 3 (5.66) | 0.541 | 0.462 |
| Occupation | ||||
| Peasant | 23 (43.40) | 26 (49.06) | 0.342 | 0.559 |
| Worker | 18 (33.96) | 15 (28.30) | 0.396 | 0.529 |
| Teacher | 8 (15.09) | 5 (9.43) | 0.789 | 0.374 |
| Others | 4 (7.55) | 7 (13.21) | 0.913 | 0.339 |
| Residence | 0.604 | 0.437 | ||
| Urban area | 25 (47.17) | 29 (54.72) | ||
| Rural area | 28 (52.83) | 24 (45.28) | ||
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 49 (92.45) | 47 (88.68) | 0.442 | 0.506 |
| Unmarried | 2 (3.77) | 1 (1.89) | 0.343 | 0.558 |
| Divorced | 2 (3.77) | 5 (9.43) | 1.377 | 0.241 |
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group |
| Cured | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 53 | 23 (43.40%) | 25 (47.17%) | 2 (3.77%) | 3 (5.66%) | 90.57% (48/53) |
| Reference group | 53 | 15 (28.30%) | 20 (37.74%) | 8 (15.09%) | 10 (18.87%) | 66.04% (35/53) |
|
| 4.296 | |||||
|
| <0.05 |
Figure 2Comparison of TCM symptom scores at different time between the two groups . Note: the abscissa represents T0, T1, T2, and T3, and the ordinate represents the TCM symptom score (points). The TCM symptom scores of the treatment group at T0, T1, T2, and T3 were (13.69 ± 0.74), (9.05 ± 0.34), (7.92 ± 0.17), and (6.35 ± 0.14), respectively. The TCM symptom scores of the reference group at T0, T1, T2, and T3 were (13.64 ± 0.71), (11.32 ± 0.29), (9.63 ± 0.23), and (8.07 ± 0.25), respectively. Significant difference in the TCM symptom scores at T1 between the two groups (t = 36.981, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the TCM symptom scores at T2 between the two groups (t = 45.527, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the TCM symptom scores at T3 between the two groups (t = 43.701, P < 0.001).
Figure 3Comparison of LVEDV levels before and after treatment between the two groups . Note: the abscissa represents before treatment and after treatment, and the ordinate represents the LVEDV level (ml). The LVEDV levels of the treatment group before and after treatment were (0.41 ± 0.06) ml and (0.63 ± 0.09) ml, respectively. The LVEDV levels of the reference group before and after treatment were (0.42 ± 0.04) ml and (0.51 ± 0.11) ml, respectively. Significant difference in the LVEDV levels of the treatment group before and after treatment (t = 14.807, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the LVEDV levels of the reference group before and after treatment (t = 5.598, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the LVEDV levels between the two groups after treatment (t = 6.147, P < 0.001).
Figure 4Comparison of BNP levels before and after treatment between the two groups . Note: the abscissa represents before treatment and after treatment, and the ordinate represents the BNP level (pg/ml). The BNP levels of the treatment group before and after treatment were (175.34 ± 13.78) pg/ml and (91.44 ± 10.33) pg/ml, respectively. The BNP levels of the reference group before and after treatment were (175.41 ± 13.69) pg/ml and (115.48 ± 11.62) pg/ml, respectively. Significant difference in the BNP levels of the treatment group before and after treatment (t = 34.466, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the BNP levels of the reference group before and after treatment (t = 24.297, P < 0.001). Significant difference in the BNP levels between the two groups after treatment (t = 11.257, P < 0.001).
Comparison of life quality scores after treatment between the two groups (, points).
| Group |
| Disease condition | Physical strength | Living function | Social psychological function | Working condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 53 | 21.43 ± 1.18 | 57.82 ± 2.76 | 15.22 ± 2.26 | 23.68 ± 1.98 | 7.61 ± 0.69 |
| Reference group | 53 | 16.52 ± 1.23 | 50.47 ± 2.33 | 10.49 ± 2.17 | 16.92 ± 1.65 | 4.62 ± 0.52 |
|
| 20.971 | 14.814 | 10.991 | 19.094 | 25.194 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |