| Purpose:To observe the clinical efficacy of treatment of pulmonary interstitial fibrosis(blood stasis syndrome)by observing the method of promoting blood circulation and dissolving stasis,and to verify the clinical feasibility of promoting blood circulation and removing stasis method.Material and method:Collected 62 patients with pulmonary interstitial fibrosis(Blood stasis syndrome)from December 2015 to November 2017 in our hospital.According to the order of visits,they were divided into a control group and a treatment group with 31 cases by random number table.The control group was given prednisone acetate tablets and omeprazole enteric-coated capsules orally.The treatment group were added the agreement agent of blood circulation(Composition: peach kernel 10 g,safflower 10 g,red peony 12 g,Chuanxiong 10 g,angelica 10 g,habitat 9g,Campanulaceae 15 g,Citrus aurantium 15 g,licorice 9g,etc.).Course of treatment is 12 weeks.TCM syndrome scores,pulmonary function,chest HRCT,blood gas analysis,6-minute walking distance measurement(6MWT),and St.George's Respiratory Questionnaire Score(SGRQ)were recorded before and after treatment in the two groups.SPSS 17.0 software was used for statistical analysis.Results: 1.TCM syndromes and signs score: 1.1 main symptoms:(1)cough score: comparison within the group: there was a difference between the two groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the treatment group was superior to the control group(P<0.05).(2)wheezing score: comparison within the group: there was a significant difference between the control group before and after treatment(P<0.01);the difference before and after treatment was significant(P<0.05).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the comparison between the two groups of wheezing groups showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).(3)complexion dullness score: comparison within the group: comparison within the control group before and after treatment showed no difference(P>0.05);The difference between the treatment group before and after treatment was significant(P<0.01).Comparison between groups:after treatment,the treatment group was significantly superior to the control group(P < 0.01).(4)oral and lip cyanosis score: comparison within the group:comparison within the control group before and after treatment was different(P<0.05);The difference between the treatment group before and after treatment was significant(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the treatment group was significantly superior to the control group(P<0.01).1.2 secondary symptoms:(1)chest tightness score: comparison within the group:comparison within the control group before and after treatment showed no difference(P>0.05);The difference between the treatment group before and after treatment was significant(P<0.01).Comparison between groups:after treatment,the treatment group was significantly superior to the control group(P<0.01).(2)shortness of breath score: comparison within the group:The difference between the control group before and after treatment was significant(P<0.05);there was a significant difference between the treatment groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the treatment group was superior to the control group(P<0.05).(3)fatigue score: comparison within the group: there was a significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the treatment group was superior to the control group(P<0.05).(4)sputum cough score: comparison within the group: there was a difference between the control group before and after treatment(P<0.05);The difference between the treatment groupb efore and after treatment was significant(P<0.01).I Comparison between groups: after treatment,the comparison between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).2.Lung function:(1)FEV1% : comparison within the group: before and after treatment in the control group,the comparison within the group is different(P<0.05).There are differences in the group before and after treatment in the treatment group(P<0.01).Comparison between groups:after treatment,there was no difference in efficacy between the treatment group and the control group(P>0.05).(2)FEV1/FVC% : group comparison: no difference in group comparison before and after treatment(P>0.05).After treatment,the comparison between the two groups of patients showed no difference(P>0.05).(3)TLC% : intra-group comparison:there is no difference in intra-group comparison before and after treatment in the control group(P>0.05);There are differences in the group before and after treatment in the treatment group(P<0.05).Inter-group comparison: there was no difference between the two groups after treatment(P>0.05).(4)DLCO% : intra-group comparison: there is no difference in group comparison before and after treatment in the control group(P>0.05);There are differences in the group before and after treatment in the treatment group(P<0.05).Inter-group comparison: there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups after treatment(P>0.05).3.HRCT score of chest: comparison within the group: there was no difference in comparison between the two groups before and after treatment(P>0.05).Comparison between groups: after treatment,there was no difference in efficacy between the two groups(P>0.05).4.Blood gas analysis(Pa O2): intra-group comparison: the comparison in the control group before and after treatment showed no difference(P>0.05);There are differences in the group before and after treatment in the treatment group(P<0.05).Comparison between groups: after treatment,there was no difference between the two groups(P>0.05).5.6 min walking distance measurement: comparison within the group: there is a significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: the treatment group is significantly better than the control group(P<0.01).6.St.George's respiratory questionnaire score:(1)symptoms and manifestations: comparison within the group: there is a significant difference in comparison between the two groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups: after treatment,the treatment group is significantly better than the control group(P<0.01).(2)limited activity: intra-group comparison:there is a significant difference in intra-group comparison between the two groups before and after treatment(P<0.01).Comparison between groups:after treatment,the treatment group is superior to the control group(P<0.05).(3)psychological condition:group comparison:no difference in group comparison before and after treatment(P>0.05).Inter-group comparison:after treatment,the comparison between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).7.Comprehensive efficacy:the total effective rate of the control group was 53.33%,and the total effective rate of the treatment group was 80.00%.The difference between the treatment group and the control group was significant(P<0.05).Conclusion: 1.Invigorating blood circulation and removing blood stasis combined with western medicine are superior to western medicine control group in improving the clinical symptoms,quality of life and overall efficiency of TCM in pulmonary interstitial fibrosis(blood stasis syndrome).2.The therapeutic effect of invigorating blood circulation and removing blood stasis combined with western medicine on pulmonary interstitial fibrosis(blood stasis syndrome)is significant. |
PDF Full Text Request