| Objective:In this study,three treatment regimens,namely,single Western medicine,combination of Chinese and Western medicine,and foot bath with Chinese and Western medicine,were used to intervene and treat patients with stable angina pectoris of coronary heart disease(Qi deficiency and Qi stagnation,mixed cold and heat syndrome).The differences in the efficacy of the three treatment regimens were observed and compared,to explore new ideas and methods for reducing cardiovascular events.Methods:The method used in this study is a prospective randomized controlled study.108 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into groups,a trial group1,and a trial group 2,with 36 patients in each group.The control group was given standardized treatment with Western medicine,while the trial group 1 was treated with oral Chinese medicine Guanxin Fuhan Fang on the basis of the control group.The trial group 2was treated with medicine dregs and foot baths on the basis of the trial group 1,for 4 weeks,followed up for 12 weeks.After treatment,according to the scores of traditional Chinese medicine symptoms The clinical efficacy and safety of the three treatment schemes were evaluated through efficacy analysis using indicators such as angina score and Seattle Angina Pectoris Scale.Results:In this study,108 patients were included,and 7 cases were lost due to loss of follow-up and personal reasons during the treatment period.A total of 101 cases were finally collected and observed.1.Basic data:Statistical software was used to compare the basic data of the three groups of patients before treatment,and there was no significant difference(P>0.05),indicating that the three groups of patients were clinically comparable.2.Therapeutic effect of TCM syndrome:There was statistically significant difference before and after treatment in the group(P~*<0.05).The total effective rates of control group,test group 1,and test group 2 were 52.94%,70.59%,and 81.82%,respectively.After treatment,the total scores of TCM syndromes in the three groups were compared in pairs,and the results showed that the efficacy of the experimental group was better than that of the control group.A comparison of the difference in scores between the two experimental groups before and after treatment showed that the efficacy of the experimental group 2 was more significant.3.Efficacy of angina pectoris:The total effective rates of control group,test group 1,and test group 2 were 58.82%,82.35%,and 90.91%,respectively.After treatment,the score of angina pectoris in the three groups was compared in pairs between the groups,and the results showed that the treatment effect in the test group 2 was more significant.4.Evaluation of the Angina Pectoris Scale:Based on the analysis of the five dimensions of the Seattle Angina Pectoris Scale,both before and after treatment in the group were statistically significant(P~*<0.05).After treatment,except for DS,there were statistically significant differences in PL,AS,AF,and TS among the groups(P<0.05),A further comparison of the score difference between the three groups of patients before and after treatment showed that the efficacy of the test group 2 was better.5.Safety indicators:During the treatment and follow-up period,no safety issues or adverse reactions occurred in the three groups of patients,indicating that the clinical study is safe.Conclusion:1.The three treatment schemes have varying degrees of effect in improving symptoms of traditional Chinese medicine,angina pectoris,and myocardial ischemia.Combined with the difference in scores before and after treatment in each group and the total effective rate,the results show that the treatment effect of traditional Chinese medicine combined with medicine residue foot bath is the best.2.This program has the characteristics of both internal and external treatment.While improving the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine,it can improve the overall quality of life of patients.Compared with previous single intervention methods,the effect is more obvious,and the operation is simple and safe,which is worth promoting in clinical practice. |