| Literature DB >> 36193139 |
Jiangang Ji1, Kai Yu2, Xinyu Zhang2, Wenting Liu2.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to determine the curative effect of Fuyuan Xingshen Decoction combined with butylphthalide sodium chloride injection in acute cerebral infarction (ACI) treatment and its effect on hemodynamics.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36193139 PMCID: PMC9526653 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2402040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy of the two groups (cases (%)).
| Group | Clinical recovery | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Total effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group ( | 12 (28.57) | 15 (35.71) | 11 (26.19) | 4 (9.52) | 38 (90.48) |
| Control group ( | 8 (19.05) | 14 (33.33) | 8 (19.05) | 12 (28.57) | 30 (71.43) |
|
| 4.941 | ||||
|
| 0.026 |
Comparative analysis of NIHSS, Barthel index, Mini-cog, and MoCA scores between the groups before and after treatment (, points).
| Group | NIHSS score | Barthel index score | Mini-cog score | MoCA score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 10.67 ± 3.05 | 5.26 ± 2.05a | 47.85 ± 4.73 | 75.55 ± 8.85a | 15.46 ± 2.09 | 27.24 ± 2.98a | 16.29 ± 2.04 | 26.86 ± 2.44a |
| Control group ( | 10.83 ± 3.48 | 8.26 ± 3.77a | 46.98 ± 3.83 | 59.02 ± 4.78a | 15.67 ± 3.11 | 21.99 ± 3.08a | 15.76 ± 2.84 | 20.57 ± 2.86a |
|
| 0.234 | 4.533 | 0.938 | 10.652 | 0.558 | 3.298 | 0.972 | 10.855 |
|
| 0.816 | <0.001 | 0.351 | <0.001 | 0.992 | <0.001 | 0.334 | <0.001 |
Note. In contrast to before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparative analysis of the two groups' hemodynamic indices before and after treatment (, points).
| Group | Vp (cm/s) | PI | Vm (cm/s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 56.35 ± 4.86 | 69.40 ± 6.00a | 0.89 ± 0.05 | 0.60 ± 0.08a | 26.82 ± 2.39 | 38.71 ± 3.24a |
| Control group ( | 55.66 ± 5.56 | 62.87 ± 5.65a | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 0.75 ± 0.10a | 27.40 ± 2.16 | 32.11 ± 3.41a |
|
| 0.603 | 5.132 | 0.048 | 7.168 | 1.166 | 9.083 |
|
| 0.548 | <0.001 | 0.962 | <0.001 | 0.247 | <0.001 |
Note. In contrast to before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparative evaluation of serum levels of UCH-L1, Fibulin-5, and VILIP-1 between the groups before and after treatment ().
| Group | UCH-L1 (ug/l) | Fibulin-5 (ug/l) | VILIP-1 (ug/l) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 0.69 ± 0.40 | 0.28 ± 0.06a | 91.32 ± 9.33 | 21.13 ± 3.71a | 8.07 ± 2.28 | 2.05 ± 1.19a |
| Control group ( | 0.64 ± 0.29 | 0.40 ± 0.22a | 90.96 ± 9.25 | 57.27 ± 5.20a | 8.32 ± 2.03 | 4.47 ± 1.91a |
|
| 0.724 | 3.564 | 0.180 | 36.678 | 0.513 | 6.965 |
|
| 0.471 | 0.001 | 0.858 | <0.001 | 0.610 | <0.001 |
Note. In contrast to before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Figure 1Comparative analysis of the UCH-L1 level before and after treatment between the groups.
Figure 2Comparative analysis of the Fibulin-5 level before and after treatment between the groups.
Figure 3Comparative analysis of the VILIP-1 level before and after treatment between the groups.
Comparison of miR-34c, miR-25, and miR-182 expression levels in peripheral blood before and after treatment in the groups ().
| Group | miR-34c | miR-25 | miR-182 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 1.19 ± 0.05 | 0.73 ± 0.07a | 0.63 ± 0.12 | 0.95 ± 0.17a | 2.72 ± 0.77 | 1.18 ± 0.53a |
| Control group ( | 1.18 ± 0.07 | 0.98 ± 0.07a | 0.63 ± 0.09 | 0.78 ± 0.09a | 2.78 ± 0.68 | 2.09 ± 0.62a |
|
| 0.324 | 15.706 | 0.072 | 5.630 | 0.364 | 7.184 |
|
| 0.747 | <0.001 | 0.943 | <0.001 | 0.717 | <0.001 |
Note. In contrast to before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Figure 4Comparative investigations of the miR-34c expression levels between the groups.
Figure 5Comparative investigations of the miR-25 expression levels between the groups.
Figure 6Comparative investigations of the miR-182 expression levels between the groups.
Comparative analysis of adverse reactions between the groups (cases (%)).
| Group | Abdominal discomfort | Fever | Nausea | Headache | Dry throat | Total adverse reaction rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group ( | 1 (2.38) | 1 (2.38) | 1 (2.38) | 1 (2.38) | 1 (2.38) | 5 (11.90) |
| Control group ( | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.38) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (4.76) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (7.14) |
| Fisher's exact probability value | 0.713 |