Effectiveness and Safety of Acupoint Application of Guan Xin Su He Pill () for Patients with Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: A Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial.
10.1007/s11655-021-2870-3
- Author:
De-Hua LI
1
;
Jin XIE
2
;
Yu-Lan REN
2
;
Hui ZHENG
2
;
Jun-Ling LYU
2
;
Jun-Yan LENG
2
;
Ling-Lin ZHANG
2
;
Jie ZHANG
2
;
Hai-Long FAN
2
;
Fan-Rong LIANG
3
Author Information
1. Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
2. Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
3. Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China. acuresearch@126.com.
- Publication Type:Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
acupoint application;
chronic stable angina pectoris;
clinical efficacy randomized controlled trial
- MeSH:
Acupuncture Points;
Angina, Stable/drug therapy*;
China;
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/adverse effects*;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese journal of integrative medicine
2021;27(11):838-845
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To assess the clinical effectiveness of acupoint application (AP) of Guan Xin Su He Pill (, GXSHP) for patients with chronic stable angina pectoris (CSAP).
METHODS:This study was carried out in 3 local hospitals in Chengdu, China. After baseline evaluation, eligible patients were randomly assigned to the placebo application for acupoints (PAA) group or the herbal application for acupoints (HAA) group. Patients in the HAA group underwent AP with herbal powder, which was mainly GXSHP, and patients in the PAA group underwent AP with sham drugs. For each treatment session, unilateral acupoints including Neiguan (PC 6), Danzhong (RN 17), Xinshu (BL 15) and Jueyinshu (BL 14), were stimulated for both groups. AP was performed 3 times a week with a 2-day interval for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the frequency of angina pectoris attacks per week, while the secondary outcomes included angina pain intensity measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), dose of rescue oral drugs (nitroglycerin), scores on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale scores (SDS). Clinical outcomes were measured at week 0, 4 and 8. The safety of AP of GXSHP treatment for CSAP were assessed.
RESULTS:A total of 121 patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were comparable across the 2 groups. After treatment, the angina attack numbers in the HAA group were significantly reduced from 11.00 to 4.81 (P<0.05). While, for PAA group, the angina frequency was not significantly improved (baseline 10.55; post-treatment 11.05). The HAA group had significantly fewer angina attacks than the PAA group (P<0.05). Pain intensity measured by VAS in HAA group was significantly reduced from 4.06 to 3.02 (P<0.05). While, for PAA group, the VAS was significantly increased (baseline 3.62; post-treatment 3.96; P<0.05). Clinical outcomes showed better improvement after treatment in the HAA group than in the PAA group in terms of oral administration of rescue drugs, SAS, SDS and SAQ scores (P<0.05). The adverse events were also reported.
CONCLUSION:AP of GXSHP is a safe and effective treatment for CSAP patients (Registration No. NCT02029118).
