论文部分内容阅读
目的:对复方丹参滴丸联合曲美他嗪治疗冠心病心绞痛的疗效和安全性进行系统性评价。方法:从中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库、Pub Med、Embase及其他中医药相关期刊中检索复方丹参滴丸联合曲美他嗪治疗冠心病心绞痛的临床随机对照试验研究(RCT);提取并汇总纳入研究的原始数据;运用Rev Man 5.3软件对数据进行分析,客观评价其疗效。结果:试验组治疗效果优于对照组[OR=3.92,95%CI(3.04,5.06)];治疗后试验组ST最大下移幅度低于对照组[MD=-0.48,95%CI(-0.54,-0.42)];治疗后试验组ST下降的导联数(NST)少于对照组[MD=-1.07,95%CI(-1.2,-0.95)];治疗后试验组左室射血分数(LVEF)高于对照组[MD=9.21,95%CI(6.06,12.37)];治疗后试验组心绞痛发作次数少于对照组[MD=-2.01,95%CI(-2.9,-1.13)]。复方丹参滴丸联合曲美他嗪治疗冠心病心绞痛的不良反应少、安全性好。结论:复方丹参滴丸联合曲美他嗪治疗冠心病心绞痛的疗效好,且安全性好,值得临床推广。但本研究纳入文献总体质量不高,且发表偏倚可能存在,所以仍需更多高质量随机双盲对照临床试验进一步验证。
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of compound Danshen dripping pills combined with trimetazidine in the treatment of coronary heart disease angina pectoris. Methods: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of compound Danshen dripping pills combined with trimetazidine in the treatment of angina pectoris of coronary heart disease was searched from CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP database, PubMed, Embase and other traditional Chinese medicine related journals. And collect the original data included in the study; use Rev Man 5.3 software to analyze the data and objectively evaluate the curative effect. Results: The treatment group was superior to the control group [OR = 3.92,95% CI (3.04,5.06)]. After treatment, the maximal downward movement of ST in the experimental group was lower than that of the control group [MD = -0.48, 95% CI , -0.42)]. After treatment, the number of STs descending in experimental group (NST) was lower than that in control group [MD = -1.07,95% CI (-1.2, -0.95)]. After treatment, the left ventricular ejection fraction (MDV = 9.21,95% CI (6.06,12.37)]. The number of angina attacks in the experimental group after treatment was less than that in the control group [MD = -2.01,95% CI (-2.9, -1.13)] . Compound Danshen dripping pills combined with trimetazidine treatment of angina pectoris less adverse reactions, good safety. Conclusion: Compound Danshen dripping pills combined with trimetazidine treatment of angina pectoris has good curative effect and good safety, which is worthy of clinical promotion. However, the quality of the literature included in this study is not high, and publication bias may exist, so more high-quality randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials still need further validation.