Clinical efficacy of traditional chinese medicine on acute myocardial infarction—A prospective cohort study
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Duan, W., Lu, F., Li, L. et al. Chin. J. Integr. Med. (2012) 18: 807. doi:10.1007/s11655-012-1116-9
- 136 Downloads
To evaluate the clinical effects of Chinese medicine (CM) on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a prospective cohort study.
A total of 334 AMI patients from January 2007 to March 2009 were consecutively enrolled, and were assigned to a treatment group (169 cases) treated with combined therapy (CM for at least one month and Western medicine) and a control group (165 cases) with Western medicine alone. Clinical data including age, gender, smoking, medical history, infarction area, heart functional classification, CM syndrome scores, blood-stasis syndrome score, primary end-point (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization) and secondary end-point (ischemic stroke, rehospitalization due to angina, heart failure and shock), were collected. CM syndrome scores, blood-stasis syndrome score, primary end-point and secondary end-point were collected during the 6-month follow-up. Kaplan-Meier method was used for the survival analysis. The multifactor analysis was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.
At the end of 6-month the CM syndrome score and bloodstasis syndrome score in the treatment group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.01), especially the symptoms of chest pain, spontaneous perspiration and insomnia. Rehospitalization rate due to angina during the 6-month follow-up in the treatment group (2.96%) was lower than that in the control group (7.88%, P<0.05). Kaplan- Meier survival curve showed that event-free cumulated survival of rehospitalization due to angina during the 6-month follow-up in the treatment group was higher than that in the control group (Log rank 4.700, P=0.03). Cox regression analysis showed that heart dysfunction [hazard ratio (HR)=1.601, 95% CI=1.084–2.364, P=0.018] and diabetes mellitus (HR=1.755, 95% CI=1.031–2.989, P=0.038) were hazard factors to end-point, whereas CM (HR 0.405, 95% CI=0.231–0.712, P=0.002), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, HR=0.352, 95% CI=0.204–0.607, P<0.001) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (HR=0.541, 95% CI=0.313–0.936, P=0.028) were protective factors.
CM therapy could decrease CM syndrome scores and blood-stasis syndrome score, reduce the rehospitalization rate during 6-month follow-up due to angina. Heart dysfunction and diabetes mellitus were hazard factors to end-point, whereas CM, PCI and ACE inhibitors were protective factors.