| Literature DB >> 35370712 |
Mingjun Zhu1, Jingjing Wei2, Ying Li3, Yongxia Wang1, Junguo Ren3, Bin Li1, Bo Ma3, Xinlu Wang1, Lijie Qiao2, Cheng Zhou2, Jianxun Liu3.
Abstract
Objective: Buyang Huanwu Decoction (BYHW), a famous herbal prescription in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), has been used for 200 years for treating ischemic heart failure (IHF). This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of BYHW combined with guideline-guided pharmacotherapy in patients with IHF and explore the biological mechanism by which BYHW exerts its efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: Buyang Huanwu decoction; coagulation function; energy metabolism; ischemic heart failure; proteomics; randomized controlled trial
Year: 2022 PMID: 35370712 PMCID: PMC8971676 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.831208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
FIGURE 1Flow diagram of patient selection and trial design.
Baseline characteristics of participants between the BYHW and control groups.
| Characteristic | BYHW ( | Control ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic information | |||
| Age (years) | 64.68 ± 7.89 | 64.93 ± 8.13 | 0.889 |
| Male n (%) | 27 (67.50%) | 26 (65.00%) | 0.813 |
| Female n (%) | 13 (32.50%) | 14 (35.00%) | |
| BMI (kg/cm2) | 24.72 ± 3.70 | 24.27 ± 3.60 | 0.584 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 129.40 ± 17.35 | 127.80 ± 17.70 | 0.684 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 80.22 ± 9.94 | 77.50 ± 11.15 | 0.252 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 69.65 ± 7.75 | 66.72 ± 7.74 | 0.097 |
| Respiratory rate (times/min) | 18.50 ± 1.15 | 18.63 ± 1.24 | 0.628 |
| Medical history n (%) | |||
| History of hypertension | 13 (44.80%) | 20 (48.80%) | 0.112 |
| History of diabetes | 8 (27.60%) | 9 (22.00%) | 0.785 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 5 (17.20%) | 7 (17.10%) | 0.531 |
| Treatment n (%) | |||
| Antiplatelet | 37 (92.50) | 35 (87.50%) | 0.456 |
| Beta-blockers | 19 (47.50%) | 28 (70.00%) | 0.041 |
| ACEI/ARB | 17 (42.5%) | 12 (30.00%) | 0.271 |
| Calcium antagonists | 3 (7.50%) | 7 (17.50%) | 0.176 |
| Statins | 32 (80.00%) | 33 (82.50%) | 0.775 |
| Diuretics | 13 (32.50%) | 10 (25.00%) | 0.459 |
| Aldosterone receptor antagonist | 11 (27.50%) | 12 (30.00%) | 0.812 |
| Nitric acid lipid | 9 (22.50%) | 11 (27.50%) | 0.606 |
| Digoxin | 8 (20.00%) | 4 (10.00%) | 0.21 |
| Clinical index | |||
| TCM syndrome score | 14.65 ± 3.16 | 15.75 ± 4.28 | 0.1948 |
| NYHA classification | |||
| II n (%) | 25 (62.5%) | 25 (62.5%) | 1 |
| III n (%) | 15 (37.5%) | 15 (37.5%) | |
BYHW, Buyang Huanwu decoction; BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; ACEI, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; TCM, traditional Chinese medicine; NYHA, New York Heart Association.
Comparison of NYHA classification and TCM syndrome scores efficiency between BYHW and control groups after 3 months of treatment.
| Excellent | Valid | Invalid | Worsened | Effective rate (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYHA classification efficiency | ||||||
| BYHW ( | 16 | 3 | 13 | 2 | 55.88 | 0.038 |
| Control ( | 12 | 0 | 12 | 9 | 36.36 | |
| TCM syndrome scores efficiency | ||||||
| BYHW ( | 6 | 18 | 10 | 0 | 70.59 | 0.036 |
| Control ( | 9 | 7 | 16 | 1 | 48.48 | |
Comparison of change in NT-ProBNP, 6 MWD and LVEF between BYHW and control groups after 3 months of treatment.
| BYHW ( | Control ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| NT-ProBNP (pg/ml) | |||
| Before treatment | 2017.67 ± 3,094.69 | 1954.26 ± 2,690.37 | 0.904 |
| After treatment | 1,211.03 ± 1,663.36** | 1931.23 ± 4,307.86* | 0.406 |
| Proportion of patients with a reduction in NT-proBNP at least 30% (%) | 76.00% | 48.10% | 0.039 |
| LVEF (%) | |||
| Before treatment | 41.09 ± 8.05 | 42.22 ± 7.85 | 0.563 |
| After treatment | 49.12 ± 9.82** | 47.62 ± 10.25** | 0.543 |
| 6 MWD (m) | |||
| Before treatment | 372.10 ± 85.24 | 363.82 ± 97.72 | 0.712 |
| After treatment | 435.91 ± 68.62** | 399.88 ± 126.03* | 0.149 |
NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; 6 MWD, 6-minute walking distance; compared with the same group before treatment, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Comparison of change in energy metabolism indexes between BYHW and control group after 3 months of treatment.
| BYHW ( | Control ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADP/ATP Ratio | |||
| Before treatment | 1.43 ± 2.80 | 1.00 ± 0.69 | 0.395 |
| After treatment | 0.76 ± 0.47* | 0.80 ± 0.76 | 0.796 |
| GLU (mmol/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 7.99 ± 4.00 | 6.40 ± 2.12 | 0.046 |
| After treatment | 6.42 ± 1.90** | 5.46 ± 1.79** | 0.039 |
| TC (mmol/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 4.01 ± 1.06 | 4.34 ± 1.21 | 0.24 |
| After treatment | 3.55 ± 0.81* | 3.98 ± 0.92 | 0.05 |
| TG (mmol/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 1.66 ± 1.20 | 1.70 ± 0.92 | 0.891 |
| After treatment | 1.51 ± 0.63 | 1.76 ± 1.22 | 0.294 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 1.18 ± 0.29 | 1.11 ± 0.21 | 0.264 |
| After treatment | 1.29 ± 0.29 | 1.20 ± 0.22 | 0.128 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 2.50 ± 0.75 | 2.57 ± 0.91 | 0.74 |
| After treatment | 2.09 ± 0.68** | 2.42 ± 0.73 | 0.064 |
ADP, adenosine diphosphate; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; GLU, glucose; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Comparison of change in coagulation function indexes between BYHW and control group after 3 months of treatment.
| BYHW ( | Control ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| PT (s) | |||
| Before treatment | 12.18 ± 1.34 | 11.92 ± 1.55 | 0.473 |
| After treatment | 12.83 ± 2.39 | 12.00 ± 1.76 | 0.112 |
| APTT (s) | |||
| Before treatment | 31.14 ± 4.14 | 30.99 ± 5.38 | 0.898 |
| After treatment | 34.30 ± 7.23* | 32.30 ± 8.03 | 0.287 |
| FIB (g/L) | |||
| Before treatment | 3.44 ± 0.75 | 3.43 ± 1.00 | 0.95 |
| After treatment | 2.83 ± 0.48** | 3.08 ± 0.59* | 0.054 |
| TT (s) | |||
| Before treatment | 14.79 ± 2.37 | 14.87 ± 2.91 | 0.907 |
| After treatment | 16.28 ± 2.13** | 15.07 ± 2.65 | 0.043 |
PT, prothrombin time; APTT, activation time of partial thromboplastin; FIB, fibrinogen; TT, thrombin time; compared with the same group before treatment, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
FIGURE 2Statistical analysis of proteome data. (A) Venn diagram of BYHW and Control differential proteins; (B) Pearson correlation analysis.
FIGURE 3Integrated analysis of differential expression proteins. (A) The volcano map of BYHW/Control; (B) Heat map of 56 differentially expressed proteins.
FIGURE 4Biological function analysis of differentially expressed proteins. (A) Top 20 cellular component enrichment terms. (B) Top 20 molecular function enrichment terms. (C) Top 20 biological process enrichment terms.
FIGURE 5Pathway enrichment results and interaction relationship of different expressed proteins. (A) Top 20 biological pathway analysis of differentially expressed proteins; (B) Protein-protein interaction network differentially expressed proteins.