| Literature DB >> 35600332 |
Lixiang Yang1, Yuanyuan Chen2, Fei Lou3, Xiaoxia Zhao4, Jia Zhou2.
Abstract
The treatment of chronic stable heart failure (CSHF) with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine has been of wide concern. We mainly discuss the clinical efficacy of TCM decoction combined with acupuncture and moxibustion (A&M) in CSHF treatment on the basis of syndrome differentiation and treatment (SDT). The control group was given conventional cardiac rehabilitation (CCR), and the treatment group was given TCM decoction combined with A&M treatment based on SDT on the basis of conventional cardiac rehabilitation. The clinical efficacy and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) indicators were evaluated. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), NT-proBNP, myocardial ischemia threshold (MIT), and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) were measured by ultrasound, ELISA, electrocardiogram, and 6MWD test. After treatment, the clinical efficacy, LVEF, and 6MWD of the treatment group were better than in the control group. The NT-proBNP plasma level and MIT in the treatment group were lower than in the control group. The treatment group had enhanced AT, VO2 Peak, VO2 Peak/HR, and Peak power and decreased resting systolic pressure and peak systolic pressure, and the difference was statistically significant. Dialectical comprehensive treatment of TCM could effectively improve cardiac function and clinical treatment effect, which was worthy of clinical application.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35600332 PMCID: PMC9119774 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5408063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiol Res Pract ISSN: 2090-0597 Impact factor: 1.990
Comparison of general data between the two groups.
| Variable | Control group ( | Treatment group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.182 | 0.670 | ||
| Male | 25 | 27 | ||
| Female | 20 | 18 | ||
| Age (years) | 65.13 ± 3.41 | 64.24 ± 3.78 | 1.172 | 0.244 |
| Course (years) | 3.13 ± 1.12 | 3.25 ± 0.78 | −0.559 | 0.578 |
| Education | −0.601 | 0.548 | ||
| Primary school and below | 8 | 10 | ||
| Junior high school | 13 | 14 | ||
| High school | 13 | 11 | ||
| College degree and above | 11 | 10 | ||
| NYHA | −0.819 | 0.413 | ||
| II | 15 | 13 | ||
| III | 20 | 18 | ||
| VI | 10 | 14 | ||
| Underlying diseases | 0.832 | 0.842 | ||
| Coronary atherosclerosis | 13 | 15 | ||
| Hypertensive heart disease | 18 | 16 | ||
| Valvular heart disease | 8 | 6 | ||
| Dilated cardiomyopathy | 6 | 8 |
Comparison of effect on cardiac function between two groups (n (%)).
| Group |
| Excellent | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 45 | 14 (31.11) | 16 (35.56) | 15 (33.33) | 30 (66.67) |
| Treatment group | 45 | 24 (53.33) | 15 (33.33) | 6 (13.33) | 39 (86.67) |
|
| 5.031 | ||||
|
| 0.025 |
Comparison of LVEF and plasma NT-proBNP between the two groups.
| Group |
| LVEF (%) | NT-proBNP (ng/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 45 | 40.08 ± 5.29 | 44.11 ± 6.67 | 637.38 ± 48.17 | 406.53 ± 35.67 |
| Treatment group | 45 | 39.21 ± 4.98 | 50.16 ± 5.57 | 624.32 ± 50.89 | 321.77 ± 39.07 |
|
| 0.804 | −4.671 | 1.251 | 10.745 | |
|
| 0.424 | 0.000 | 0.214 | 0.000 | |
Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of MIT and 6MWD between the two groups.
| Group |
| MIT (mv) | 6MWD (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 45 | 0.22 ± 0.11 | 0.16 ± 0.09 | 337.38 ± 48.17 | 380.53 ± 35.67 |
| Treatment group | 45 | 0.19 ± 0.13 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 324.32 ± 50.89 | 421.77 ± 39.07 |
|
| 1.149 | 3.679 | 1.249 | −5.229 | |
|
| 0.254 | 0.001 | 0.215 | 0.000 | |
Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of cardiopulmonary exercise test evaluation between the two groups.
| Group |
| Resting heart rate (times/min) | Peak heart rate (times/min) | Resting systolic pressure (mmHg) | Peak systolic pressure (mmHg) | Resting diastolic pressure (mmHg) | Peak diastolic pressure (mmHg) | AT (mL/(kg·min)) | VO2 Peak (mL/(kg·min)) | VO2 Peak/HR (mL/Time) | Peak power (w) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 45 | 75.52 ± 10.74 | 77.63 ± 10.95 | 104.46 ± 14.21 | 109.25 ± 12.33 | 120.46 ± 16.96 | 109.93 ± 14.08 | 155.12 ± 15.31 | 143.86 ± 19.61 | 61.67 ± 6.68 | 63.47 ± 7.02 | 75.32 ± 7.96 | 76.33 ± 9.48 | 10.52 ± 2.12 | 13.84 ± 2.64 | 14.86 ± 3.84 | 18.16 ± 2.04 | 7.95 ± 1.45 | 9.52 ± 1.48 | 88.74 ± 15.36 | 98.51 ± 10.55 |
| Treatment group | 45 | 75.32 ± 8.48 | 74.82 ± 11.45 | 105.92 ± 12.03 | 105.90 ± 16.42 | 118.50 ± 113.06 | 102.83 ± 8.84 | 156.35 ± 15.98 | 132.27 ± 14.76 | 62.36 ± 6.99 | 65.04 ± 8.06 | 75.89 ± 6.57 | 76.75 ± 7.87 | 10.76 ± 2.20 | 15.23 ± 2.26 | 15.12 ± 3.76 | 19.45 ± 1.85 | 8.10 ± 1.65 | 10.85 ± 1.60 | 85.62 ± 17.20 | 105.45 ± 8.62 |
|
| 0.098 | 1.192 | −0.527 | 1.096 | 0.614 | 2.864 | −0.373 | 3.166 | −0.472 | −0.986 | −0.370 | −0.233 | −0.527 | −2.683 | −0.325 | −3.142 | −0.458 | −4.093 | 0.908 | −3.417 | |
|
| 0.922 | 0.236 | 0.600 | 0.276 | 0.541 | 0.005 | 0.710 | 0.002 | 0.638 | 0.372 | 0.712 | 0.816 | 0.600 | 0.009 | 0.746 | 0.002 | 0.648 | 0.000 | 0.367 | 0.001 | |
Compared with before treatment, P < 0.05.