| Literature DB >> 35345661 |
Haiping Du1, Hui Fu2, Jing Yu3, Zuowang Cheng4, Yanhong Zhang5.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the efficacy of the application of Buqi Huoxue Decoction combined with cardiac rehabilitation nursing for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its influence on the prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345661 PMCID: PMC8957433 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4008966
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Measurement of the clinical efficacy in the four groups (n, %).
| Group |
| Remarkable effect | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 30 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 20 (66.67) |
| Cardiac care group | 30 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 22 (73.33) |
| TCM + WM group | 30 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 24 (80.00) |
| Comprehensive treatment group | 30 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 29 (96.67) |
|
| 0.698 | P1 | 0.705 | ||
|
| 2.700 | P2 | 0.259 | ||
|
| 11.736 | P3 | 0.003 | ||
|
| 7.497 | P4 | 0.024 | ||
|
| 4.286 | P5 | 0.117 |
X 2 1, P1 indicate Cardiac care group compared with control group; X22, P2 indicate TCM + WM group compared with control group; X23, P3 indicate comprehensive treatment group compared with control group; X24, P4 indicate cardiac care group compared with comprehensive treatment group; X25, P5 indicate TCM + WM group compared with comprehensive treatment group.
Figure 1Detection of myocardial injury markers levels in the four groups after treatment. (a) Detection of CK-MB levels after treatment. (b) Detection of cTnI levels after treatment. (c) Detection of α-HBDH levels after treatment. #P < 0.05.
Figure 2Detection of vascular endothelial function indexes of the four groups after treatment. (a) Detection of ET-1 levels after treatment. (b) Comparison of VEGF levels after treatment. P < 0.01, #P < 0.01.
Figure 3Detection of four groups of cardiac function index levels after treatment. (a) Detection of LVEF levels after treatment in the four groups. (b) Detection of LFS levels after treatment in the four groups. (c) Detection of LVEDd levels after treatment in the four groups. (d) Detection of LVESd levels after treatment in the four groups. #P < 0.01, P < 0.05.
Detection of QOL quality of life scores after treatment in the four groups (n = 30, x ± s).
| Group | Appetite | Spirit | Sleep | Fatigue | Daily life |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | |||||
| Before treatment | 31.93 ± 4.93 | 32.43 ± 2.64 | 31.93 ± 4.92 | 31.93 ± 5.00 | 31.77 ± 4.88 |
| After treatment | 39.70 ± 2.54 | 39.80 ± 2.81 | 40.07 ± 2.52 | 40.17 ± 2.98 | 40.30 ± 2.84 |
|
| |||||
| Cardiac care group | |||||
| Before treatment | 33.10 ± 4.91 | 33.43 ± 2.64 | 33.13 ± 4.87 | 33.47 ± 5.41 | 33.60 ± 5.34 |
| After treatment | 51.60 ± 2.43# | 51.67 ± 2.48# | 52.03 ± 2.57# | 52.23 ± 5.84# | 52.43 ± 2.92# |
|
| |||||
| TCM + WM group | |||||
| Before treatment | 31.83 ± 4.89 | 30.83 ± 2.78 | 32.13 ± 5.48 | 32.70 ± 5.67 | 32.73 ± 5.64 |
| After treatment | 46.43 ± 2.40# | 46.47 ± 2.61# | 46.53 ± 2.52# | 46.57 ± 2.94# | 46.57 ± 3.05# |
|
| |||||
| Comprehensive treatment group | |||||
| Before treatment | 31.63 ± 4.97 | 32.27 ± 2.15 | 31.77 ± 5.10 | 31.93 ± 5.65 | 31.87 ± 5.85 |
| After treatment | 53.87 ± 1.93 | 53.97 ± 2.17 | 53.93 ± 4.86 | 53.80 ± 1.88 | 53.80 ± 2.02 |
# P < 0.05 vs control group, P < 0.05 vs other three group.
Figure 4Measurement of negative emotion scores in the four groups after treatment. (a) Measurement of SAS scores after treatment for 1, 7, and 30 days. (b) Measurement of SDS scores after treatment for 1, 7, and 30 days. P < 0.05, #P < 0.05.
Measurement of the prognosis of the four groups (n = 30, %).
| Group | Readmission rate | Total incidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arrhythmia | Heart failure | Myocardial infarction recurrence | ||
| Control group | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 (36.67) |
| Cardiac care group | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 (30.00) |
| TCM + WM group | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 (20.00) |
| Comprehensive treatment group | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3.33) |
#P < 0.05 vs control group, P < 0.05 vs other three group.
Detection of adverse reactions' incidence in the four groups (n = 30, %).
| Group | Headache | Gastrointestinal discomfort | Rash | Nausea and vomiting | Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 (40.00) |
| Cardiac care group | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 (36.67) |
| TCM + WM group | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 10 (33.33) |
| Comprehensive treatment group | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 (30.00) |
#P < 0.05 vs control group, P < 0.05 vs other three group.