电针与麦普替林治疗抑郁症患者的对照研究

作者	单位
韩毳	北京中医药大学针灸学院
李学武	北京中医药大学针灸学院
李晓泓	北京大学精神卫生研究所
罗和春	北京中医药大学针灸学院
赵学英	北京大学精神卫生研究所

摘要点击次数: 1373

全文下载次数: 1840

中文摘要:

目的:观察电针与麦普替林（以下简称药物）治疗抑郁症的对照研究。方法:分别接受电针治疗的30例和服用药物治疗的31例患者于治疗前及治疗过程中第14、28、42天分别采用Hamilton抑郁量表（HAMD）、抑郁自评量表（SDS）、焦虑自评量表（SAS）、Asberg抗抑郁药副反应量表以及临床总体印象量表（CGI）进行疗效与副反应评分。结果:电针与药物治疗后SDS、HAMD分数均明显低于治疗前（P<0.01）,两组间比较差异均无显著性（P>0.05）。药物组伴躯体性综合征的患者HAMD减分率显著高于电针组（P<0.01）。治疗后电针组焦虑/躯体化症状群、SAS、Asberg抗抑郁药副反应量表的分数均低于药物组（P<0.05）,电针组疗效指数显著高于药物组（P<0.01）。结论:电针和药物均有明显的抗抑郁作用,对躯体主诉多、焦虑症状明显、年老体弱或体质敏感不耐药物副反应的患者可首选电针。

英文摘要:

Objective: To compare the effect of electro-acupuncture (EA) and maprotiline (Map) in treating depression. Methods: Thirty patients of depression were treated with EA and 31 patients with Map orally taken respectively. The therapeutic effect and side-effect were evaluated by measurement of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Self-Rating Scale for Depression (SDS), Self-Rating Scale for Anxiety (SAS), Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) and Asberg Rating Scale for side-effects (ARS) before treatment and on the day 14, 28 and 42 of the therapeutic course. Results: After treatment, the scores of HAMD and SDS lowered significantly (P<0.01) than before treatment, and with insignificant difference between the group (P>0.05). For patients with somatic syndrome, the HAMD score decrease rate was obviously higher in the Map group than that in the EA group. However, for the patients with anxiety somatization syndrome, the score of SAS, ARS in the EA group were significantly lower than those in the Map group (P<0.05). Moreover, the efficacy index was higher in the EA group (P<0.01). Conclusion: Both EA and Map are effective in treating depression.

关闭