| Background：Cough is one of most common symptoms in respiratorydisease. It’s a defensive reflex action to remove the secretions and otherforeign matters and comes with a high incidence. As there is no positivephysical and chemical indications, doctors always regard it as a “commonsimple cough”and won’t give correct and timely treatment what will result indelayed healing or gradually increased, even some other serious disorders. Itseems that modern medical do not find an effective way to make patientssatisfied with the treatment because of the bad improvement of symptoms, thefrequent side effects. On the contrary, Chinese medicine show a highersuPeriority in the efficacy and safety against the acute cough. Acute cough is aexogenous cough in Chinese medicine. The cause of the disease is complexand diverse. While studies have shown that phlegm and heat is its basicsymptom factors as a transformation.And based on this, we put forward thebasic rinciples of treatment that is “Xuan Tong Qing Hua”. And SangsuerchenTang is an example of it.Objective：Observe the efficacy of Sangsuerchen Tang who is based onmy mentor experience in decades years to acute cough is Phlegm and heat bycompared with dextromethorPhan in total score, cough score and overallefficacy evaluation. Described by the differences, there is a better effect in thetreatment of phlegm-heat acute cough with Sangsuerchen Tang than withdextromethorPhanMethods：All of the80cases who was diagnosed with acute cough werecollected in the pulmonary clinic in Hebei Chinese medical Hospital. Half ofthem were treated by Sangsuerchen Tang as treatment group and the otherswere treated by Dextromethorphan as control group. One week is a course andthe observation lasts two course. After7days, observe their total symptom scores, cough scores, and the overall effect by score the patients’symptoms,such as cough, sputum,throat itching, sore throat, nasal congestion,runny noseand so on. And the same thing would be done after two weeks. Then calculatethe total symptom score improvement rate, cough score improvement rate,efficacy index and determine the comprehensive efficacy.Results:1One week after treatmentIn total symptom score improvement rate, there is a difference in eachgroup before and after treatment, indicating that both of the two groups canimprove total score. And there was a significant difference in the two groups(P＜0.05) what can be considered that the total score of treatment groupimprovement was significantly better than the control group. In cough scoreimprovement rate, there is a difference in each group before and aftertreatment, indicating that both of the two groups can improve cough score.While there was no significant difference in the two groups (P＞0.05) whatcan not be considered that the cough score of treatment group imProvementwas better than the control group. On aspect of comprehensive efficacy，thetreatment group was47.5%,and the total efficiency was92.5%. While theefficiency of the control group was only25.0%and total efficiency was85.0%.There was a significant difference between the treatment grouP and controlgroup (P＜0.05) and the former was better.2Two week after treatmentIn total symptom score and cough score improvement rate, there is adifference in each group before and after treatment, indicating that both of thetwo groups can improve total score. And there was a significant difference inthe two groups (P＜0.05) what can be considered that the total score andcough score of treatment group improvement was significantly better than thecontrol group. On aspect of comprehensive efficacy，the treatment group was90.0%,and the total efficiency was100.0%. While the efficiency of the controlgroup was only40.0%and total efficiency was87.5%. There was a significantdifference between the treatment group and control grouP (P＜0.05) and the former was better.3Comparison with different time of treatment in the same groupIn the treatment group, total symptoms score and cough score hasstatistical significance indicating that the efficacy could be improved byextending the treat time. While it would be failed at the same circumstance incontrol group.Conclusion:1It can be sure that Sangsuerchen Tang bring better effect thanHydrobromide in the treatment of Phlegm-heat acute cough2Both Sangsuerchen Tang and Hydrobromide could quickly relievesymptoms of cough. But when comes to imProve the systemic symptomsof,the former is better than the latter.3Extending the treat time is useful to ImProve the therapeutic effect forSangsuerchen Tang while it is useless to Hydrobromide. |
PDF Full Text Request