| Literature DB >> 36081956 |
Nasha Sun1, Wangkun Chen2, Yan Wu1, Qiyi Yu1, Xia Zhou3, Bing Guo4.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the curative effect of Yangxin Dingji capsule combined with mexiletine hydrochloride on postoperative ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and its influences on vascular endothelial function in coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081956 PMCID: PMC9448595 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4078895
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Med Int ISSN: 2090-2840 Impact factor: 1.621
Comparison of clinical effects between the two groups of patients (n, (%)).
| Group | Number of cases | Effective | Valid | Invalid | Total efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55 | 18 (32.73) | 20 (36.36) | 17 (30.91) | 38 (69.09) | |
| Control group | 55 | 29 (52.73) | 18 (32.73) | 8 (14.55) | 47 (85.46) |
|
| 4.193 | ||||
|
| 0.041 |
Comparison of arrhythmia between the two groups (n, ± s, times).
| Group | Number of cases |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | ||
| Control group | 55 | 273.62 ± 32.22 | 86.64 ± 20.86a | 4973.89 ± 491.31 | 1157.67 ± 204.49a | 8241.31 ± 808.45 | 1414.87 ± 350.16a |
| Combined group | 55 | 279.82 ± 31.67 | 58.85 ± 18.78a | 5086.05 ± 401.38 | 767.47 ± 186.00a | 8219.25 ± 935.02 | 894.85 ± 360.60a |
|
| 1.018 | 7.341 | 1.311 | 10.469 | 0.132 | 7.673 | |
|
| 0.311 | 0.001 | 0.193 | 0.001 | 0.895 | 0.001 | |
Comparison of plasma viscosity between the two groups (n, ± s).
| Group | Number of cases |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | ||
| Control group | 55 | 10.43 ± 1.15 | 8.76 ± 1.30a | 6.61 ± 1.15 | 5.13 ± 0.85a | 370.32 ± 37.10 | 331.68 ± 23.75a |
| Combined group | 55 | 10.34 ± 1.44 | 7.22 ± 1.64a | 7.01 ± 1.64 | 4.81 ± 0.70a | 370.48 ± 40.18 | 292.98 ± 25.01a |
|
| 0.349 | 5.474 | 1.477 | 2.142 | 0.021 | 8.320 | |
|
| 0.727 | 0.001 | 0.143 | 0.034 | 0.983 | 0.001 | |
aindicates comparison with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparison of the vascular endothelial function between the two groups of patients (n, ± s).
| Group | Number of cases |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | Before the treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | ||
| Control group | 55 | 38.95 ± 6.03 | 49.52 ± 5.42a | 75.86 ± 10.08 | 58.00 ± 7.11a | 172.41 ± 19.88 | 130.60 ± 20.14a |
| Combined group | 55 | 38.81 ± 5.17 | 59.51 ± 6.96a | 72.90 ± 9.98 | 49.43 ± 7.49a | 176.22 ± 28.38 | 118.90 ± 12.50a |
|
| 0.128 | 8.399 | 1.547 | 6.153 | 0.816 | 3.66 | |
|
| 0.899 | 0.001 | 0.125 | 0.001 | 0.416 | 0.001 | |
Note.a indicates comparison with the same group before treatment aP < 0.05.
Comparison of the total incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (n, (%)).
| Group | Number of cases | Vomiting | Lack of appetite | Nervous system damage | dry mouth | Diarrhea | Nausea | Overall incidence of adverse reactions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 55 | 2 (3.64) | 3 (5.45) | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 9 (16.36) |
| Combined group | 55 | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 0(0.00) | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 1 (1.82) | 5 (9.09) |
|
| 1.310 | |||||||
|
| 0.252 |