| Literature DB >> 35313509 |
Qina Jiang1, Guangxiang Zhao1, Shiyan Song2, Yujuan Chen1.
Abstract
To observe the clinical efficacy of heat clearing phlegm mixture combined with vibration sputum excretion instrument in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of COPD with phlegm-heat obstructing lung, 90 patients with acute exacerbation of COPD are selected and divided into three groups, namely, control group, traditional medicine group, and combined group: the control group (conventional western medicine treatment), traditional medicine group (heat clearing and phlegm mixture), and combined group (heat clearing and phlegm mixture + vibratory sputum excretion instrument) with 30 cases each. All the patients in the three groups were given conventional western medicine treatment. On this basis, the traditional medicine group was given the oral administration of the heat-clearing and phlegm-clearing mixture, and the combined group was given the oral administration of the heat-clearing and phlegm-clearing mixture and the vibratory sputum discharge apparatus. Machine learning is used to classify the patients into three groups based on the characteristics of their biomarkers, physical attributes, and medical history. The TCM syndrome score, blood gas analysis, lung function, and inflammatory indexes of the three groups were compared. TCM syndrome scores of the three groups were all lower than before; both the combined group and the TCM group were better than the control group (P < 0.05). Although the improvement degree of the combined group was better than that of the TCM group, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). TCM syndrome effect is seen to be 96.55% in the combined group, 89.29% in the TCM group, and 63.33% in the control group. Blood gas analysis is also performed; PO2 and PCO2 of the three groups were significantly improved after treatment. The combination group was superior to the traditional medicine group and the control group (P < 0.05), and the traditional medicine group was superior to the control group (P < 0.05). It is concluded that the combination of heat clearing phlegm mixture and vibration sputum excretion instrument can improve TCM syndrome score, CAT score, blood gas analysis, lung function, and inflammatory indicators in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD with phlegm-heat obstructing lung.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35313509 PMCID: PMC8934218 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3962074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1ML-based schema to classify the patients with COPD diseases and prescribing remedial solutions.
Comparison of TCM syndrome scores of three groups before and after treatment (x ± s).
| Groups | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 26.60 ± 2.58 | 17.43 ± 4.88 | 12.339 | 0.001 |
| TCM group | 27.32 ± 2.31 | 13.75 ± 4.80 | 16.075 | 0.001 |
| Combined group | 27.03 ± 2.88 | 10.55 ± 3.91 | 27.355 | 0.001 |
Note: if it conforms to normal distribution, t-test is used.
Comparison of TCM syndrome scores among three groups after treatment.
| Groups | Group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | TCM group | 17.031 | 0.031 |
| Combined group | 32.524 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||
| TCM group | Combined group | 15.510 | 0.061 |
Note: if it conforms to normal distribution, one-way ANOVA is used.
Comparison of TCM main symptom scores of three groups before and after treatment (x ± s).
| Symptoms | Group category | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Control group | 4.73 ± 1.23 | 2.93 ± 1.01 | −4.208 | 0.001 |
| TCM group | 4.86 ± 1.15 | 2.43 ± 0.84 | −4.326 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 4.76 ± 1.12 | 2.00 ± 0.76 | −4.681 | 0.001 | |
|
| |||||
|
| Control group | 3.87 ± 1.28 | 3.07 ± 1.26 | −2.972 | 0.003 |
| TCM group | 4.50 ± 1.17 | 2.00 ± 1.33 | −4.093 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 3.72 ± 1.28 | 1.79 ± 1.11 | −3.938 | 0.001 | |
|
| |||||
|
| Control group | 4.67 ± 1.09 | 3.20 ± 1.25 | −3.989 | 0.001 |
| TCM group | 4.43 ± 1.00 | 2.93 ± 1.15 | −3.666 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 4.28 ± 0.88 | 2.00 ± 0.53 | −4.823 | 0.001 | |
|
| |||||
|
| Control group | 3.73 ± 1.36 | 2.87 ± 1.36 | −3.127 | 0.001 |
| TCM group | 3.07 ± 1.02 | 1.71 ± 1.18 | −3.578 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 3.24 ± 0.99 | 1.10 ± 1.14 | −4.490 | 0.001 | |
Note: if it does not conform to normal distribution, rank-sum test is used.
Comparison of TCM main symptom scores among three groups after treatment.
| Symptoms | Group | Combinatory group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shortness of breath | Control group | TCM group | 10.726 | 0.113 |
| Combined group | 19.144 | 0.001 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 8.417 | 0.317 | |
|
| ||||
| Cough | Control group | TCM group | 18.507 | 0.006 |
| Combined group | 22.331 | 0.001 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 3.824 | 1.000 | |
|
| ||||
| Wheezing | Control group | TCM group | 4.796 | 1.000 |
| Combined group | 22.669 | 0.000 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 17,873 | 0.004 | |
|
| ||||
| Expectoration | Control group | TCM group | 17.950 | 0.009 |
| Combined group | 28.269 | 0.000 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 10.319 | 0.270 | |
Note: if it does not conform to normal distribution, rank-sum test is used.
Comparison of the efficacy of TCM syndrome after treatment in three groups of patients.
| Group | Clinical control cases | Cases have marked effect | Effective cases | Ineffective cases | Total effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The control group | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.67%) | 17 (56.67%) | 11 (36.66%) | 63.33 |
| The TMC group | 0 (0%) | 6 (21.43%) | 19 (67.86%) | 3 (10.71%) | 89.29 |
| The combined group | 0 (0%) | 9 (31.03%) | 19 (65.52%) | 1 (3.45%) | 96.55 |
Note: rank-sum test.
Within-group comparison of CAT scores before and after treatment in the three groups (x ± s).
| Group | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The control group | 25.47 ± 3.22 | 18.47 ± 3.15 | 19.338 | 0.001 |
| The TCM group | 25.11 ± 2.90 | 16.18 ± 3.32 | 19.296 | 0.001 |
| The combined group | 24.90 ± 3.14 | 14.10 ± 3.06 | 21.493 | 0.001 |
Note: consistent with normal distribution using the t-test.
Comparison of CAT scores among the three groups of patients after treatment.
| Group | Group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| The control group | The combined group | 15.925 | 0.048 |
| The TCM group | 29.774 | 0.001 | |
|
| |||
| The TCM group | The combined group | 13.849 | 0.113 |
Note: consistent with normal distribution using one-way ANOVA.
Within-group comparison of blood gas analysis before and after treatment in the three groups (x ± s).
| Item | Group | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PO2 | The control group | 64.90 ± 6.88 | 70.27 ± 6.48 | −12.969 | 0.000 |
| The TCM group | 66.43 ± 7.85 | 76.07 ± 8.29 | −17.028 | 0.000 | |
| The combined group | 66.00 ± 6.11 | 81.76 ± 7.32 | −20.581 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| PCO2 | The control group | 49.63 ± 5.58 | 46.90 ± 5.20 | 6.223 | 0.000 |
| The TCM group | 49.50 ± 5.12 | 43.07 ± 5.56 | 16.213 | 0.000 | |
| The combined group | 48.55 ± 6.88 | 39.55 ± 3.69 | 10.432 | 0.000 | |
Note: consistent with a normal distribution, using the t-test.
Comparison of blood gas analysis among the three groups of patients after treatment.
| Item | Group | Group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PO2 | The control group | The TCM group | −17.120 | 0.029 |
| The combined group | −33.170 | 0.000 | ||
| The TCM group | The combined group | −16.050 | 0.049 | |
|
| ||||
| PCO2 | The control group | The TCM group | 15.981 | 0.048 |
| The combined group | 32.620 | 0.000 | ||
| The TCM group | The combined group | 16.639 | 0.038 | |
Note: consistent with normal distribution, using one-way ANOVA.
Comparison of lung function among three groups before and after treatment (‾x ± s).
| Lung function | Groups | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEV1% | Control group | 52.75 ± 17.88 | 55.55 ± 14.92 | −2.517 | 0.018 |
| Chinese medicine group | 53.33 ± 17.91 | 59.92 ± 14.55 | −3.903 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 52.96 ± 17.57 | 68.47 ± 10.37 | −3.773 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| FEV1/FVC | Control group | 56.96 ± 7.90 | 57.78 ± 7.46 | −2.565 | 0.016 |
| Chinese medicine group | 56.72 ± 6.98 | 60.65 ± 4.31 | −6.834 | 0.001 | |
| Combined group | 56.31 ± 6.49 | 63.95 ± 4.03 | −4.705 | 0.000 | |
Note: if the normal distribution was met, the t-test was used. Otherwise, the rank-sum test was used (with ∗ being the rank-sum test).
Comparison of lung function among three groups after treatment (‾x ± s).
| Project | Groups | Groups |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEV1% | Control group | Chinese medicine group | −6.848 | 0.907 |
| Combined group | −23.039 | 0.001 | ||
| Chinese medicine group | Combined group | −16.191 | 0.047 | |
|
| ||||
| FEV1/FVC | Control group | Chinese medicine group | −6.670 | 0.945 |
| Combined group | −25.410 | 0.000 | ||
| Chinese medicine group | Combined group | −18.740 | 0.015 | |
Comparison of inflammatory indexes among three groups before and after treatment (‾x ± s).
| Inflammatory indexes | Groups | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBC | Control group | 12.27 ± 2.77 | 8.40 ± 1.56 | 10.494 | 0.00 |
| Chinese medicine group | 12.10 ± 3.12 | 7.31 ± 1.48 | 10.358 | 0.00 | |
| Combined group | 11.44 ± 2.90 | 6.96 ± 1.32 | 8.741 | 0.00 | |
|
| |||||
| NEUT% | Control group | 77.73 ± 10.03 | 67.65 ± 6.96 | 5.343 | 0.00 |
| Chinese medicine group | 78.63 ± 10.32 | 63.74 ± 3.76 | 7.590 | 0.00 | |
| Combined group | 76.29 ± 9.39 | 60.62 ± 4.09 | 9.583 | 0.00 | |
|
| |||||
| CRP | Control group | 50.77 ± 23.70 | 8.11 ± 11.75 | −4.782 | 0.00 |
| Chinese medicine group | 52.34 ± 29.49 | 2.73 ± 3.28 | −4.623 | 0.00 | |
| Combined group | 52.25 ± 28.58 | 1.90 ± 2.23 | −4.703 | 0.00 | |
Note: if the normal distribution was met, the t-test was used. Otherwise, the rank-sum test was used (with ∗ being the rank-sum test).
Comparison of inflammatory indexes among three groups after treatment.
| Project | Group | Combinatory group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBC | Control group | TCM group | 16.519 | 0.038 |
| Combined group | 21.501 | 0.003 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 4.982 | 1.000 | |
|
| ||||
| NEUT% | Control group | TCM group | 16.908 | 0.033 |
| Combined group | 30.275 | 0.000 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 13.366 | 0.137 | |
|
| ||||
| CRP | Control group | TCM group | 16.483 | 0.039 |
| Combined group | 20.035 | 0.007 | ||
| TCM group | Combined group | 3.552 | 1.000 | |
Note: if the normal distribution was met, the single-factor analysis of variance was used. Otherwise, the rank-sum test was used (with ∗ being the rank-sum test).