| Literature DB >> 35557556 |
Lei Lan1,2, Tao Yin1,2, Zilei Tian1,2, Ying Lan3, Ruirui Sun1,2, Zhengjie Li1,2, Miaomiao Jing4, Qiao Wen1,2, Shenghong Li5, Fanrong Liang1,6, Fang Zeng1,2,6.
Abstract
Background: Acupuncture is an effective adjunctive therapy for chronic stable angina pectoris (CSAP), while the underlying mechanism is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the central pathophysiology of CSAP and explore the mechanism of different acupoint prescriptions for CSAP from the perspective of brain-heart interaction.Entities:
Keywords: acupuncture; angina; brain-heart interaction; coronary artery disease; fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations; functional connectivity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35557556 PMCID: PMC9087858 DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2022.842674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5099 Impact factor: 6.261
FIGURE 1The flowchart of the study. CSAP, chronic stable angina pectoris; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; fALFF, fractional Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuation; FC, functional connectivity.
The demographic and clinical characteristics of CSAP patients and HS.
| CSAP ( | HS ( | Statistic value | ||
| Age (Years) | 65.05 ± 7.23 | 56.71 ± 5.49 | <0.001 | |
| Gender (M/F) | 20/17 | 26/39 | 0.559 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 24.42 ± 2.67 | 23.35 ± 2.72 | 0.059 | |
| Education level (primary/middle school/college) | 6/22/9 | 8/40/17 | 0.856 | |
| Duration (Month) | 57.92 ± 56.78 | / | / | / |
| Frequency of angina attacks | 5.89 ± 4.38 | / | / | / |
| McGill pain scale | 10.46 ± 3.82 | / | / | / |
| SAS score | 32.97 ± 4.51 | / | / | / |
| SDS score | 30.95 ± 4.70 | / | / | / |
CSAP, chronic stable angina pectoris; HS, healthy subjects; M/F, male/female; BMI, Body Mass Index; SAS, self-rating anxiety scale; SDS, self-rating depression scale. ***p < 0.001.
The between-group comparison of demographic characteristics and baseline conditions of CSAP patients in these two acupuncture groups.
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Statistic value | ||
| Age (Years) | 65.20 ± 5.967 | 65.86 ± 7.675 | 0.189 | |
| Gender (M/F) | 6/9 | 8/6 | 0.356 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 25.05 ± 2.94 | 24.56 ± 2.56 | 0.593 | |
| Education level (primary/middle school/college) | 3/10/2 | 2/8/4 | 0.590 | |
| Duration (Month) | 62.33 ± 52.64 | 59.79 ± 71.46 | 0.913 | |
| Frequency of angina attacks | 5.53 ± 3.60 | 5.43 ± 4.85 | 0.414 | |
| McGill pain score | 10.73 ± 4.76 | 9.57 ± 2.64 | 0.552 | |
| SAS score | 33.58 ± 3.83 | 32.68 ± 5.32 | 0.877 | |
| SDS score | 31.93 ± 5.02 | 30.36 ± 5.08 | 0.650 | |
|
| ||||
| Antiplatelet drugs (Y/N) | 10/5 | 8/6 | 0.597 | |
| ACEI/ARB (Y/N) | 4/11 | 3/11 | 0.742 | |
| Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (Y/N) | 5/10 | 6/8 | 0.597 | |
| Statins | 11/4 | 9/5 | 0.599 | |
M/F, male/female; BMI, Body Mass Index; SAS, self-rating anxiety scale; SDS, self-rating depression scale; Y/N, Yes/No; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor Blocker.
FIGURE 2The baseline and the change of fALFF after treatment in CSAP patients. (A) Illustrates the baseline comparison of fALFF between CSAP patients and HS. The warm tone indicates CSAP patients >HS. (B) Illustrates acupuncture effects on the fALFF of CSAP patients. The warm tone indicates increased fALFF after treatment while the cool tone indicates decreased fALFF after treatment. Threshold: voxel-level p < 0.05, cluster-level p-GRF < 0.05. MOG, middle occipital gyrus; PosCG, postcentral gyrus; STG, superior temporal gyrus; MOFG, middle orbitofrontal gyrus; MeOFG, median orbitofrontal gyrus; ParaHipp, parahippocampus; Hipp, hippocampus; L, left; R, right.
The clinical effects of acupuncture in CSAP patients.
| Pre (mean ± SD) | Pos (mean ± SD) | Within-group comparison | Between-group comparison | |||
|
| ||||||
| All patients | 5.48 ± 4.17 | 4.45 ± 3.73 | 1.240 | 0.225 | ||
| Group A ( | 5.53 ± 3.60 | 3.93 ± 3.26 | 1.964 | 0.049 | 0.689 | 0.414 |
| Group B ( | 5.43 ± 4.85 | 5.00 ± 4.22 | 0.528 | 0.598 | ||
|
| ||||||
| All patients | 10.17 ± 3.86 | 6.36 ± 2.95 | 6.101 | <0.001 | ||
| Group A ( | 10.73 ± 4.76 | 6.87 ± 2.61 | 3.665 | 0.003 | 0.363 | 0.552 |
| Group B ( | 9.57 ± 2.64 | 5.82 ± 3.28 | 5.557 | <0.001 | ||
|
| ||||||
| All patients | 33.15 ± 4.55 | 31.19 ± 4.55 | 2.328 | 0.027 | ||
| Group A ( | 33.58 ± 3.83 | 31.29 ± 4.64 | 2.427 | 0.029 | 0.024 | 0.877 |
| Group B ( | 32.68 ± 5.32 | 31.07 ± 4.62 | 1.104 | 0.290 | ||
|
| ||||||
| All patients | 31.17 ± 5.02 | 30.52 ± 5.13 | 0.674 | 0.506 | ||
| Group A ( | 31.93 ± 5.02 | 30.50 ± 5.51 | 1.264 | 0.227 | 0.211 | 0.650 |
| Group B ( | 30.36 ± 5.08 | 30.54 ± 4.90 | −0.110 | 0.914 | ||
Pre, Pre-treatment; Pos, Pos-treatment; SD, standard deviation; SAS, self-rating anxiety scale; SDS, self-rating depression scale. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 3The overlapping region and its correlation with clinical symptoms. (A) Is the location of the overlapping region. (B) Is the comparison of fALFF of the overlapping region among HS and the baseline and after treatment of CSAP patients. (C) Illustrates the correlation between the baseline fALFF of the overlapping region and the baseline McGill pain score in CSAP patients. (D–F) Illustrate the correlations between the fALFF change of the overlapping region and improvements of clinical symptoms after treatment. HS, healthy subjects; pre, pre-treatment; pos, post-treatment; fALFF, fractional Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuation; SAS, self-rating anxiety scale; SDS, self-rating depression scale. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 4The ROI-based rsFC change after treatment and its correlations with clinical symptoms improvements. (A) Displays the ROI-based rsFC change after treatment in group A. Threshold: voxel-level p < 0.05, cluster-level p-GRF < 0.05. (B) Displays the between-group difference of ROI-based rsFC change after treatment in groups A and B. Threshold: voxel-level p < 0.05, cluster-level p-GRF < 0.05. (C) Illustrates the comparisons of ROI-based rsFC values of the survival regions at pre- and post-treatment in those two groups. (D) Illustrates the correlations between ROI-based rsFC change of the survival regions and clinical symptoms improvements in group A. L, left; R, right; FuG, fusiform gyrus; SMG, supramarginal gyrus; ITG, inferior temporal gyrus; MCC, middle cingulate cortex; Hipp, hippocampus; ROI, region-of-interest; rsFC, resting-state functional connectivity; SDS, self-rating depression scale; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The black arrow indicates the location of the left hippocampus.