| ObjectiveComparing with the acupuncture, the research is to study the clinical effects of the qigong therapy with acupuncture on the Migraine without aura(MWO) by a randomized controlled clinical test(RCT). It is also to find out the efficacy of the therapy to the MWO, and to provide clinical evidance for its efficiency on the side of substance P.MethodThe propective randomized controlled study chose60cases, which were in accordance with the diagnostic and indrawing standards to be the subjects of the study. The patients were randomly divided into2groups, with30cases in each group. The control group was given acupuncture treatment only for30min per day. The treatment group was given acupuncture treatment (the same as the control group) and the Deng’s qigong therapy right after for30min per day.5days a course, both groups received4course in total.2days between every2courses as a break. During the test, the situations of the headache, the time of the Migraine lasts, and simultaneous symptoms of both groups were recorded and scored. By the survey of the Migraine Spacific Quality of Life(MSQ), the quality of life of the Migraine patients in both group were evaluated before and after the treatment. Each group took the blood tests for substance P.Results1Physical datasAmong the60cases, no one dropped off. There were no significant differences in the age, gender compositon, heihtr, weight, temperature and heart rate (P>0.05). The two groups were comparable.2Migraine Scores(1)After2courses, the symptom of migraine can be improved in both groups(P<0.01), which has no significant difference between the2groups(P>0.05).(2) Comparing the improvement of migraine before and after treatment, the treatment group is significantly better(P<0.05). And its superiority is shown in the latter part of the treatment (the last2courses)(P<0.05).(3)On the60th day follow-up, the situation of the migraine of both groups has no significant differences with the situation right after the treatment (P>0.05). And there are no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).3VAS Scores(1) After2courses, the VAS scores can be improved in both groups (P<0.01), which has no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).(2)Comparing with the VAS scores before treating, improvements can be seen in both groups after4courses(P<0.01), which are better shown in treatment group(P<0.05).(3) Comparing with that after2course, the improvements of the VAS scores of the2groups after4courses are sinificantly different(P<0.05). The results show that the treatment group has better effects on releasing the pain after4course of treatment. And its advantage is mainly in the last2courses while its efficacy is similar with the control group in the first2courses.(4)On the60th day follow-up, the VAS scores of both groups have been significantly improved, compared with that right after the treatment(P<0.01). And there are no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).4General Scores(1)After2courses, the general scores, which represents various symptoms of the migraine patients, can be improved in both groups(P<0.01), which has no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).(2)Although both groups can improve the symptoms of migraine after4courses (P<0.01), the treatment group has better effects (P<0.05).(3) In the last2courses, the treatment group is significantly better in improving the general symptoms of the patients (P<0.01).(4) On the60th day follow-up, the general scores of both groups have been significantly improved, compared with that right after the treatment(P<0.01). And there are no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).5Efficiency Evaluation(1)The total efficiency of the control group is80.00%, while that is93.33%of the treatment group.(2) The total efficiency has significant differences between the2groups(P<0.05), which shows the treatment group is superior.6Survey of Migraine Specific Quality of Life (MSQ)(1)Before and after treatment the quality of life in both groups were significantly improved (P<0.01). The treatment group shows its better efficacy (P<0.05).(2) On the60th day follow-up, the MSQ scores of both groups have been significantly improved, compared with that right after the treatment(P<0.01). And there are no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).7Assay of Substance P(SP) in Blood(1)After2courses, the content of SP in blood can be decreased in both groups(P<0.01), which has no significant differences between the2groups(P>0.05).(2)Although both groups can lower the content of SP after4courses(P<0.01), the treatment group has better effects(P<0.05).(3)In the last2courses, the treatment group is significantly better in lowering down SP in blood (P<0.01).(4) On the60th day follow-up, the assay of SP of both groups have been significantly decreased, compared with that right after the treatment(P<0.01). And there are no significant differencesConclusion(1)Both acupuncture and acupuncture with qigong therapy are efficient to MWO patients. A relatively short-term treatment (after2courses) of both groups have similar efficacy (including the efficiency to the migraine, the decrease of the pain and the improvement of general symptoms, etc.), while the superiority of the acupuncture with qigong therapy shows in the longer time of treatment (after4courses). And the efficacy of both groups can be kept until the60th day follow-up, of which the situation of the pain, the general symptoms, the quality of life and the content of SP can even improved compared with those right after treatment.(2)The decrease of SP in blood may be a relative factor to the pain release of the MWO after treated by acupuncture and qigong.(3)The inpact of psychology may be involved in the mechanism of qigong in treating MWO. |
PDF Full Text Request