冠心病心绞痛中医药防治临床研究的现状调查

目的 :调查近 1年来关于中医药防治冠心病心绞痛临床研究的现状。方法 :统计 2 0 0 1年 1月—2 0 0 2年 6月相关的中医核心期刊和全国中医院校学报上的关于中医药防治冠心病心绞痛的临床观察文章 ,并分析其对不稳定性心绞痛 (unstableangina ,UA)与稳定性心绞痛 (stableangina ,SA)的诊断、病情的分级或分层、疗效的判定标准、UA的规范药物治疗等方面的情况。结果 :共检索到 4 4篇文献 ,其中有 38 6 %(17/4 4篇 )未对冠心病心绞痛作UA或SA的分型诊断 ,有 6 5 9% (2 9/4 4篇 )的文献在治疗上未将UA和SA区分开 ,在这 2 9篇文献中 ,11篇来自省级、中央级中医研究机构和中医学院附属医院 ;在观察对象为UA和含有UA患者的 34篇文献中 ,仅 3篇提到予以规范的西药治疗 ;有 35篇 (占 79 5 % )所用疗效判定标准为1979年的疗效评定标准。结论 :大部分关于中医药防治冠心病心绞痛的临床研究在诊断和临床治疗UA、SA上存在不规范、欠严谨 ,科学性不够等问题。有关中医药治疗冠心病心绞痛的疗效判定标准亟待完善。

英文摘要:

Objective: To analyze the current status of clinical studies of TCM in preventing and treating angina pectoris of coronary heart disease. Methods: A statistical analysis of articles regarding the use of TCM in preventing and treating angina pectoris, published in TCM core journals or journals of TCM university (college) from January 2001 to June 2002 was conducted, the items analyzed included the differentiation of stable angina (SA) and unstable angina (UA), the grading or stratifying, standard for therapeutic efficacy evaluation, standardized drug therapy of UA (according to the "Suggestion on the diagnosis and treatment of UA" formulated by Society of Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Medical Association, etc. Results: From the 44 articles that retrieved, UA and SA was not differed in 29 articles (65.9%), among which 11 articles came from provincial, national TCM institute or hospital affiliated to TCM university (college). In the 34 articles dealing with UA, only 3 articles mentioned the standardized drug therapy. Standard of therapeutic efficacy evaluation announced in 1979 was used in 35 articles (79.5%). Conclusion: Most articles dealing with clinical study on TCM prevention and treatment of angina pectoris, UA and SA, have the flaws of un standardized, lacking in compact and insufficient science. Improvement of related standard for clinical therapeutic efficacy evaluation needs to be further perfected.

关闭