| ObjectiveIn this study, bloodletting therapy method, with etoricoxib as control, through a randomized controlled clinical study to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of pricking blood therapy to relieve acute gouty arthritis symptoms, this disease develop safe, effective, simple treatment.MethodsThis study collected 52 patients in a prospective randomized method,52 patients were randomly divided into bleeding group (treatment group) and etoricoxib group (control group),26 cases in each group. On the conditions of The low purine diet, the treatment group used local and contralateral upper limb with distal meridian as bleeding sites, while the control group took the pills of etoricoxib for 90mg per time. The treatment lasted for 3 days, The observation of VAS, joint swelling degree and joint activity score improvement would be recorded. The result of anlysing data with spssl3.0 as the data would be recorded.Results1. All cases reached the peak of pain within 1 day and both of two groups of the gender, disease type, age, course of disease, WBC, serum uric acid and observation index were consistent. They had comparable on the case of no difference in statistics (p＞0.05).2. after treatment, the total effective rate was 100% in the treatment group and 88.5% in the treatment group, two in the control group and two in the group after the first treatment.3. VAS score:(1)Treatment group:The scores of VAS before treatment (7.31±1.12), the first time treatment (4.08±1.35), the secondtime treatment (1.31±0.47) and the third time treatment(1.12±1.14) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two times(p＜0.05), except the contrast between the second and the third time. The pain was significantly relieved for the first, second, third time. The best effect was the second time treatment. There was no obvious contrast with the second and the third time.(2)Control group. The scores of VAS before treatment (7.81±1.02), the first time treatment (6.42±1.10), the second time treatment (4.62±1.90) and the third time treatment(2.81±2.42) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two groups (p＜0.05). The pain was relieved than before for the first, second, third time and better effect in second and third time.(3)The contrast with control and treatment group. There was a contrast with the two groups(p＜0.05) for the first、the second and the third time.(4) Compared treatment group with control group’s value. There was a contrast with the two groups’value for the first、the second and the third time(p＜0.05).4. Joint swelling score:(1)Treatment group. The scores of joint swelling before treatment (7.27±1.43), the first time treatment (5.31±1.46), the second time treatment (3.46±1.21) and the third time treatment (2.38±1.44) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two groups(p＜0.05). The pain was relieved than before for the first, second, third time and better effect in first time.(2)Control group. The scores of joint swelling before treatment (7.77±1.21), the first time treatment(7.31±1.19), the second time treatment(4.77±1.28) and the third time treatment (2.81±2.43) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two groups (p＜0.05) except the contrast between the first time and before treatment. The degree of swelling was no obvious improvement in the first time, but much better in the second and third time.(3)The contrast with control and treatment group. There was a contrast with the two groups(p＜0.05) for the first and the second. There was no obvious contrast with two groups for the third time(p＞0.05).(4)Compared treatment group with control group’s value. There was a contrast with the two groups’value for the first(p＜0.05). There was no obvious contrast with two groups for the second and the third time(p＞0.05).5. Tenderness:(1) Treatment group.The scores of tenderness before treatment (2.69±0.47), the first time treatment (1.85±0.54), the second time treatment (2.69±0.47) and the third time treatment (0.65±0.63) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two times(p＜0.05). The pain was relieved than before for the first, second, third time and better effect in first time.(2)Control group. The scores of tenderness before treatment (2.81±0.40), the first time treatment(2.50±0.51), the second time treatment(1.81±0.63) and the third time treatment (1.27±0.72) were compared with each other. There were great contrast with every two times(p＜0.05) except the first time and before treatment. The degree of tenderness was no obvious improvement in the first time, but much better in the second and third time.(3)The contrast with control and treatment group. There was a contrast with the two groups(p＜0.05) for the first, the second and the third time.(4)Compared treatment group with control group’s value. There was a contrast with the two groups’value for the first (p＜0.05). There was no obvious contrast with two groups for the second and the third time(p＞0.05).6. Joint activity reduction score:(1)Treatment group. The scores of joint activity reduction score before treatment(6.62±1.90), the first time treatment(3.0±1.79), the second time treatment(1.50±0.36) and the third time treatment(0.65±0.69) were compared with each other.There were great contrast with every two times(p＜0.05). The pain was relieved than before for the first, second, third time and better effect in first time.(2)Control group. The scores of joint activity reduction score before treatment (7.19±1.94), the first time treatment(6.23±1.82), the second time treatment (3.62±1.98) and the third time treatment (2.27±1.93) were compared with each other. There were great contrast with every two times (p＜0.05), but no obvious between before and the first time(p>0.05),the second and the third time(p＞0.05).(3)The contrast with control and treatment group. There was a contrast with the two groups(p＜0.05) for the first, the second and the third time.(4)Compared treatment group with control group’s value. There was a contrast with the two groups’value for the first (p＜0.05). There was no obvious contrast with two groups for the second and the third time(p＞0.05).6. Adverse reactions:the treatment group had no adverse reaction and the control group of 2 subjects had anorexia, epigastric fullness.ConclusionThe results suggest that compared to control group, bloodletting ther apy to relieve acute gouty arthritis symptoms more rapidly, effectively, safely. |
PDF Full Text Request