| Literature DB >> 35535308 |
Wen-Chuan Qi1,2, Hong-Juan Fu1, Rui-Rui Sun1,2, Xiang Li1,2, Ding-Jun Cai1,2, Chao Wang1,3, Fan-Rong Liang1,2.
Abstract
Background: The number of systematic reviews meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the effectiveness of acupuncture for angina pectoris (AP) is increasing. Due to the inconsistent conclusions and unknown quality of these SRs/MAs, this overview aimed to systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing SRs/MAs, attempting to provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of AP.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Angina pectoris; Overview; Systematic reviews
Year: 2022 PMID: 35535308 PMCID: PMC9077518 DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2022.100864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Integr Med Res ISSN: 2213-4220
Fig. 1Flowchart of the selection process of included SRs/MAs.
Characteristics of included SRs
| Author, year | Trials (subjects) | Patient diagnosis | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes | Main results | Quality assessment | Meta-analysis | AMSTAR2 | ROBIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen (2012) (China) | 21(1961) | AP | MA, MA + M | M | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; | Bothe acupuncture and acupuncture combined with conventional drugs relieved angina symptoms and improved ECG. | Cochrane ROB | Yes | CL | |
| Wang (2012) (China) | 6(386) | AP | MA + CM + M, MA + M, | CM + M, CM | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; | Acupuncture combined with TCM group was significantly better than TCM group in improving angina pectoris symptoms and ECG. | Cochrane ROB | Yes | CL | |
| Yu (2015) | 25(2058) | AP, SAP, UAP | MA, MA + M, | SA; M; CM | Angina relief; | The number of patients with ineffectiveness of angina relief and ECG improvement was less in the combined acupuncture group than in the anti-angina medicines alone group. | Cochrane ROB | Yes | CL | |
| Li (2015) (China) | 3(244) | AP | MA | CM | Effective rate | Acupuncture is an effective therapy in treating angina pectoris | Jadad scale | Yes | CL | |
| Zhang (2015) (China) | 8(640) | SAP | MA, EA, ATCM | M; CM | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; | acupuncture significantly increased the clinical curative effects in the relief of angina symptoms and improved the ECG | Unclear | Yes | CL | |
| Zhang (2015) (China) | 11(1232) | AP | A + M | M, SA + M | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; Nitroglycerin use; | Based on regular western medicine, acupuncture can further improve symptoms of angina and ECG, and reduce the dosage of nitroglycerin | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Shao (2016) (China) | 12(1006) | CHD | EA + M | M | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; Effective rate; Nitroglycerin use; Adverse effect | Electroacupuncture can effectively improve the clinical symptoms and ECG, decrease the dosage of nitroglycerin | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Li (2017) (China) | 7(465) | UAP | MA + M | M | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; | Acupuncture combined with routine medicine is better in relieving angina syndrome, improving ECG, and reducing the duration of myocardial ischemia in Holter. | Jadad scale | Yes | CL | |
| Zhou (2018) (China) | 4(245) | SAP | MA + M | M | Angina attack frequency; ECG improvement; | Acupuncture combined medicine can improve the treatment efficiency, the ECG, reduce the frequency of angina and nitroglycerin consumption. There were no significant changes between two groups in 6-MWT. | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Bu (2018) (China) | 21(1774) | AP | MA + M, | M | Angina symptoms relief; ECG improvement; 6MWT | Acupuncture combined with medicine can reduce the symptoms of angina pectoris, reduce the number of episodes of angina pectoris | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Sun (2019) (China) | 7(621) | AP | MA, MA + M, MA + CM | M, CM | Effective rate | Acupuncture can improve the clinical symptoms in patients with CHD | Unclear | Yes | CL | |
| Yang (2019) (China) | 17(1516) | SAP | MA, EA, | SA, M, CM | Angina attack frequency; ECG improvement; 6MWT; Angina pain intensity; Adverse effect; Effective rate | Acupuncture was associated with reduced angina attack frequency. No significant improvement was shown in nitro-glycerin use or angina intensity. | Cochrane criteria | Yes | L | |
| Huang (2019) (China) | 24(1916) | AP | MA + M, | M, CM | Markedly effective rate; Moderately effective rate | Patients who received adjunctive acupuncture treatment had a significantly increased markedly effective rate. | Jadad scale | Yes | CL | |
| Ma (2020) (China) | 7(846) | SAP | MA + M | M | Angina attack frequency; Angina pain intensity; | The number of attacks in patients with angina and the degree of pain in acupuncture group were reduced more than that in the control group. | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Tu (2021) | 7(893) | CSAP | MA, EA | SA, SC | Angina attack frequency; | Acupuncture combined with standard care was more effective in reducing angina attack frequency and angina pain intensity than sham acupuncture with standard care and standard care alone. | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL | |
| Song (2021) | 13(1708) | CSAP | EA | Waiting treatment | Angina attack frequency; angina pain intensity; Adverse effect; Nitroglycerin use | Acupuncture group was superior to the waiting treatment group in reducing the attack frequency and alleviating pain of angina. | Cochrane criteria | Yes | CL |
AMSTAR2: A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2; AP: angina pectoris; ATCM: Acupuncture-based Traditional Chinese Medicine; CHD: coronary heart disease; CL: critically low; CM: Chinese medicines; CSAP: chronic stable angina pectoris; EA: electroacupuncture; L: Low; M: Medications; MA: manual acupuncture; ROBIS: Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews; SA: Sham acupuncture; SAP: stable angina pectoris; SC: standard care group; UAP: unstable angina pectoris; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; 6MWT: 6cminute walk test;
= Low risk; = High risk;
Evidence quality of included studies
| Patients | Outcomes | Interventions vs comparisons | Author (year) | Relative effect (95% CI) | P-value | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP | Incidence of myocardial infarction | MA + M vs M | Chen (2012) | OR 0.18 (0.04, 0.84) | 0.03 | L |
| Angina symptom relief | MA + M vs M | Chen (2012) | OR 4.23 (2.73, 6.56) | <0.01 | L | |
| MA vs M | Chen (2012) | OR 3.59 (1.76, 7.92) | 0.04 | VL | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Wang (2012) | OR 5.68 (2.59, 12.43) | <0.01 | VL | ||
| EA + M/CM vs M/CM | Shao (2016) | OR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29) | 0.002 | L | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | OR 3.61 (2.42, 5.37) | <0.01 | Mo | ||
| ECG recovery | MA + M vs M | Chen (2012) | OR 2.61 (1.83, 3.73) | <0.01 | Mo | |
| MA vs M | Chen (2012) | OR 3.07 (1.54, 6.10) | 0.001 | VL | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Wang (2012) | OR 2.65 (1.59, 4.41) | 0.0002 | VL | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Yu (2015) | RR 0.48 (0.36, 0.63) | <0.01 | L | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | RR 1.28 (1.17, 1.39) | <0.01 | L | ||
| EA + M/CM vs M/CM | Shao (2016) | OR 1.99 (1.29, 3.07) | 0.002 | L | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | OR 3.02 (1.99, 4.59) | <0.01 | L | ||
| Ineffectiveness of angina relief | MA + M/CM vs M/CM | Yu (2015) | RR 0.33 (0.21, 0.51) | <0.01 | L | |
| Nitroglycerin use | A + CM vs CM | Yu (2015) | MD -0.41 (-0.69, -0.14) | 0.0003 | L | |
| Reduce nitroglycerin use | EA + M/CM vs M/CM | Shao (2016) | OR 3,40 (1.56, 7.41) | 0.002 | VL | |
| Effect rate | A + CM vs CM | Li (2015) | OR 0.12 (0.04, 0.35) | <0.01 | VL | |
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | RR 1.25 (1.17, 1.33) | <0.01 | Mo | ||
| EA + M/CM vs M/CM | Shao (2016) | OR 1.27 (0.64, 2.52) | 0.49 | L | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Sun (2019) | OR 3.76 (2.44, 5.80) | <0.01 | L | ||
| Myocardial ischemia time of Holter | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | WMD -16.94 (-37.54, 3.66) | 0.11 | VL | |
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | MD -16.93 (-34.46, 0.60) | 0.06 | L | ||
| 6-MWT | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | MD 31.63 (29.18, 34.08) | <0.01 | VL | |
| Angina attack frequency | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | MD -5.37 (-5.53, -5.21) | <0.01 | L | |
| Angina pain intensity | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Bu (2018) | MD -0.47 (-0.52, -0.43) | <0.01 | L | |
| Markedly effective rate | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Huang (2019) | OR 2.10 (1.62, 2.72) | <0.01 | Mo | |
| Moderately effective rate | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Huang (2019) | OR 0.98 (0.80, 1.21) | 0.876 | Mo | |
| SAP | Angina symptom relief | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | OR 2.89 (1.87, 4.47) | <0.01 | L |
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Yang (2019) | RR 1.25 (1.11, 1.39) | 0.01 | L | ||
| ECG recovery | A + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | OR 1.81 (1.23, 2.71) | 0.03 | L | |
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Yang (2019) | RR 1.25 (1.13, 1.37) | <0.01 | L | ||
| Effect rate | MA + M/CM vs M/CM | Zhang (2015) | OR 2.13 (0.90, 5.07) | 0.09 | VL | |
| MA + M vs M | Zhou (2018) | OR 6.01 (1.94, 18.66) | 0.002 | VL | ||
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Yang (2019) | RR 1.25 (1.14, 1.37) | <0.01 | VL | ||
| Nitroglycerin use | A + CM vs CM | Zhang (2015) | MD -0.44 (-0.64, -0.24) | <0.01 | L | |
| EA + M vs M | Yang (2019) | MD -3.21 (-7.00, -0.59) | 0.1 | VL | ||
| A vs SA | Yang (2019) | MD -2.92 (-10.45, -4.62) | 0.45 | VL | ||
| A vs WT | Song (2021) | MD -1.56 (-2.56, -0.32) | 0.002 | L | ||
| Angina attack frequency | EA + M vs M | Yang (2019) | MD -5.30 (-6.37, -4.22) | <0.01 | L | |
| A vs SA | Yang (2019) | MD -4.47 (-6.69, -2.27) | <0.01 | VL | ||
| MA + M vs M | Ma (2020) | MD -4.93 (-5.08, -4.77) | <0.01 | Mo | ||
| A vs SA | Tu (2021) | MD -4.00 (-5.06, -2.94) | <0.01 | L | ||
| A vs SC | Tu (2021) | MD -5.10 (-5.25, -4.94) | <0.01 | L | ||
| A vs WT | Song (2021) | MD -5.38 (-5.54, -5.22) | <0.01 | L | ||
| Angina pain intensity | EA + M vs M | Yang (2019) | MD -0.90 (-1.34, -0.47) | <0.01 | L | |
| EA vs SA | Yang (2019) | MD -0.94 (-2.20, 0.32) | 0.14 | L | ||
| MA + M vs M | Ma (2020) | MD -0.48 (-0.53, -0.44) | <0.01 | Mo | ||
| A vs SA | Tu (2021) | MD -0.46 (-0.81, -0.11) | 0.01 | L | ||
| A vs SC | Tu (2021) | MD -0.72 (-0.96, -0.48) | <0.01 | L | ||
| A vs WT | Song (2021) | MD -0.47 (-0.52, -0.43) | <0.01 | L | ||
| 6-MWT | A + M vs M | Yang (2019) | MD 36.98 (-18.56, 92.52) | <0.19 | VL | |
| EA vs SA | Yang (2019) | MD 17.50 (17.10, 17.90) | <0.01 | L | ||
| A vs WT | Song (2021) | MD 30.65 (28.18, 33.12) | <0.01 | L | ||
| UAP | Effective rate | MA + M vs M | Li (2017) | OR 6.31 (0.91,10.87) | <0.01 | VL |
| ECG recovery | MA + M vs M | Li (2017) | OR 1.98 (1.18, 3.33) | 0.01 | L | |
| A + M/CM vs M/CM | Yu (2015) | RR 0.62 (0.42, 0.90) | 0.01 | L | ||
| Myocardial ischemia time of Holter | MA + M vs M | Li (2017) | MD -13.13 (-15.35, 10.90) | <0.01 | VL |
A: acupuncture; AP: angina pectoris; CHD: coronary heart disease; CI, confidence interval; CM: Chinese medicines; EA: electroacupuncture; ECG: electrocardiogram; L, low; M: Medications; MA: manual acupuncture; MD, mean difference; Mo, moderate; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk; SA: Sham acupuncture; SAP: stable angina pectoris; SC: Standard care; SMD, standardized mean difference; UAP: unstable angina pectoris; VL, very low; WT: Waiting treatment; 6-MWT: six-minutes walking test;
Values of the included SR were expressed with the second decimal places in P values, although some values have more than 2 decimal places, such as p<0.00001;
①Included RCTs did not report randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, loss of drop-out or selective report; ②Small sample size or large confidence interval; ③Unexplained heterogeneity; ④Suspicion of publishing bias.