Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2024, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2): 381-387.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2024.02.003
Previous Articles Next Articles
YU Zhengqiu1, YU Liuda2, CHEN Ye3, LI Mingjing3, CAI Wanru4()
Received:
2022-12-11
Accepted:
2023-04-19
Online:
2024-04-15
Published:
2024-03-05
Contact:
Prof. CAI Wanru, Department of Respiratory Medical, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310005, China. Supported by:
YU Zhengqiu, YU Liuda, CHEN Ye, LI Mingjing, CAI Wanru. Effectiveness and safety of Qidong Huoxue decoction (芪冬活血饮) in treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2024, 44(2): 381-387.
Figure 1 TCM syndrome scores and PaO2/FiO2 levels A1: TCM syndrome scores on the 1st day; A2: TCM syndrome scores on the 7th day; A3: TCM syndrome scores on the 14h day; B1: PaO2/FiO2 levels on the 1st day; B2: PaO2/FiO2 levels on the 7th day; B3: PaO2/FiO2 levels on the 14th day; C: TCM syndrome scores on the 1st, 7th, and 14th day for the TCM treatment group and the conventional group; D: PaO2/FiO2 levels on the 1st, 7th, and 14th day for the TCM treatment group and the conventional group. The TCM group (n = 36) and conventional group (n = 37) received general standard treatment. In addition, TCM groups received 50?mL of QDHX per day for 14 d. TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine; PaO2: oxygen tension; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; crt: Conventional group; trt: Traditional Chinese Medicine group; QDHX: Qidong Huoxue decoction. All data is presented in the form of bar charts and scatter plots.
Item | Overall (n = 73) | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex [F/M, n (%)] | 25/48 (34.2/65.8) | 11/25 (30.6/69.4) | 14/23 (37.8/62.2) | 0.624 |
Age | 73.00 (66.00, 81.00) | 74.50 (68.00, 85.00) | 70.00 (63.00, 80.00) | 0.068 |
TCM syndrome scores | 29.21 (9.01) | 30.86 (8.80) | 27.59 (9.03) | 0.122 |
HGB (g/L) | 109.00 (84.00, 125.00) | 110.50 (91.00, 133.00) | 104.00 (78.00, 123.00) | 0.235 |
WBC (109/L) | 9.80 (6.91, 16.00) | 9.80 (7.47, 12.60) | 9.90 (6.40, 16.90) | 0.783 |
PLT (109/L) | 160.00 (110.00, 230.00) | 166.50 (133.50, 230.00) | 147.00 (105.00, 199.00) | 0.206 |
CRP (mg/L) | 65.30 (32.00, 119.00) | 81.12 (44.32, 141.77) | 53.68 (20.90, 111.00) | 0.077 |
D-D (mg/L) | 3.38 (1.73, 6.46) | 3.36 (1.90, 6.49) | 3.67 (1.12, 6.46) | 0.804 |
PCT (μg/L) | 0.31 (0.13, 1.30) | 0.26 (0.12, 1.79) | 0.38 (0.14, 1.04) | 0.749 |
Murray score | 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) | 1.62 (1.25, 2.00) | 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) | 0.493 |
APACHE II | 17.00 (12.00, 24.00) | 17.00 (12.75, 24.00) | 17.00 (12.00, 22.00) | 0.715 |
PaO2/FiO2 | 187.00 (153.00, 232.00) | 192.50 (158.50, 240.50) | 180.00 (145.00, 224.00) | 0.110 |
Table 1 Baseline clinical characteristics
Item | Overall (n = 73) | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex [F/M, n (%)] | 25/48 (34.2/65.8) | 11/25 (30.6/69.4) | 14/23 (37.8/62.2) | 0.624 |
Age | 73.00 (66.00, 81.00) | 74.50 (68.00, 85.00) | 70.00 (63.00, 80.00) | 0.068 |
TCM syndrome scores | 29.21 (9.01) | 30.86 (8.80) | 27.59 (9.03) | 0.122 |
HGB (g/L) | 109.00 (84.00, 125.00) | 110.50 (91.00, 133.00) | 104.00 (78.00, 123.00) | 0.235 |
WBC (109/L) | 9.80 (6.91, 16.00) | 9.80 (7.47, 12.60) | 9.90 (6.40, 16.90) | 0.783 |
PLT (109/L) | 160.00 (110.00, 230.00) | 166.50 (133.50, 230.00) | 147.00 (105.00, 199.00) | 0.206 |
CRP (mg/L) | 65.30 (32.00, 119.00) | 81.12 (44.32, 141.77) | 53.68 (20.90, 111.00) | 0.077 |
D-D (mg/L) | 3.38 (1.73, 6.46) | 3.36 (1.90, 6.49) | 3.67 (1.12, 6.46) | 0.804 |
PCT (μg/L) | 0.31 (0.13, 1.30) | 0.26 (0.12, 1.79) | 0.38 (0.14, 1.04) | 0.749 |
Murray score | 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) | 1.62 (1.25, 2.00) | 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) | 0.493 |
APACHE II | 17.00 (12.00, 24.00) | 17.00 (12.75, 24.00) | 17.00 (12.00, 22.00) | 0.715 |
PaO2/FiO2 | 187.00 (153.00, 232.00) | 192.50 (158.50, 240.50) | 180.00 (145.00, 224.00) | 0.110 |
Time | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | t value | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 31±9 | 28±9 | -1.57 | 0.122 |
After 7 d treatment | 20±6 | 23±8 | 1.47 | 0.148 |
After 14 d treatment | 11±4 | 20±8 | 5.73 | < 0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of TCM clinical syndromes in TCM group and Conventional group ($\bar{x}±s$)
Time | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | t value | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 31±9 | 28±9 | -1.57 | 0.122 |
After 7 d treatment | 20±6 | 23±8 | 1.47 | 0.148 |
After 14 d treatment | 11±4 | 20±8 | 5.73 | < 0.001 |
Figure 2 Comparison between the TCM herb and control groups after treatment of 7 and 14 d A: comparison of TCM Syndrome Score between the TCM herb and control groups after treatment of 7 and 14 d; B: comparison of PaO2/FiO2 between the TCM herb and control groups after treatment of 7 and 14 d. TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine; crt: conventional group; trt: TCM group. QDHX: Qidong Huoxue decoction; PaO2/FiO2: oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen. The TCM group and conventional group received general standard treatment. In addition, TCM groups received 50?mL of QDHX per day for 14 d. Student t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used for comparison analysis. aP > 0.05, vs conventional group; bP < 0.0001 vs conventional group; cP < 0.01, vs conventional group;
Time | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | W value | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 192.50 (158.50, 240.50) | 180.00 (145.00, 224.00) | 521 | 0.110 |
After 7 d treatment | 255.50 (179.50, 327.25) | 230.00 (168.00, 323.00) | 660 | 0.947 |
After 14 d treatment | 332.50 (239.25, 378.25) | 250.00 (180.00, 313.00) | 418.5 | 0.006 |
Table 3 Comparison of PaO2/FiO2 levels in TCM group and conventional group (IQR)
Time | TCM group (n = 36) | Conventional group (n = 37) | W value | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 192.50 (158.50, 240.50) | 180.00 (145.00, 224.00) | 521 | 0.110 |
After 7 d treatment | 255.50 (179.50, 327.25) | 230.00 (168.00, 323.00) | 660 | 0.947 |
After 14 d treatment | 332.50 (239.25, 378.25) | 250.00 (180.00, 313.00) | 418.5 | 0.006 |
Figure 3 Spearman correlation analysis TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine; HGB: hemoglobin; WBC: white blood cell; PLT: blood platelet; CRP: C-reactive protein; D-D: D-dimer; PCT: procalcitonin; APACHE II: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; PaO2/FiO2: oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen.
1. |
Meyer NJ, Gattinoni L, Calfee CS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet 2021; 398: 622-37.
DOI PMID |
2. |
Force ADT, Ranieri V, Rubenfeld G, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 2012; 307: 2526-33.
DOI PMID |
3. | Griffiths MJ, McAuley DF, Perkins GD, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMJ Open Respir Res 2019; 6: e000420. |
4. |
Chao J, Dai Y, Verpoorte R, et al. Major achievements of evidence-based Traditional Chinese Medicine in treating major diseases. Biochem Pharmacol 2017; 139: 94-104.
DOI PMID |
5. | Luo CY, Wang S, Li Y. In sight into diagnosis and treatment of acute resoiratory distress syndrome from the perspective of toxin, stasis and deficiency. J Tradit Chin Med 2017; 26: 823-6. |
6. |
Liu Z, Li S, Zhao W, Zhou G. A systematic review and Meta-analysis of effect evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Palliat Med 2021; 10: 5520-32.
DOI PMID |
7. |
Huang L, Zhang X, Ma X, et al. Berberine alleviates endothelial glycocalyx degradation and promotes glycocalyx restoration in LPS-induced ARDS. Int Immunopharmacol 2018; 65: 96-107.
DOI PMID |
8. | Cheng L, Zhang Y, He S, et al. A systematic review and Meta-analysis of Tongfu Xiefei method in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Zhong Guo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue 2020; 32:970-5. |
9. | Yang TZ, Liu Y, Liu YY, et al. The use of Rheum Palmatum L. in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Afr J Tradit Complem 2017; 14: 334-47. |
10. | Xu LY, Cai WR, Ma CF, Shou QY, Qian JL, Huseyin TS. Qi-Dong-Huo-Xue-Yin inhibits inflammation in acute lung injury in mice via toll-like receptor 4/caveolin-1 signaling. Evid-Based Compl Alt 2018; 2018: 2373609. |
11. | Hong HH, Yang JC, Cai WR. Effects of qidong huoxue decoction on caveolin-1/NF-κB inflammation signal pathway in acute lung injury rats. Zhong Hua Zhong Yi Yao Za Zhi 2016; 31: 239-43. |
12. | Cai WR, Hong HH, Lu XF. Effect of Qidong Huoxue decoction on rats’ ET-1 with acute lung injury caused by oleic acid. Zhejiang Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao 2008: 02. |
13. |
Force* TADT. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the berlin definition. JAMA 2012; 307: 2526-33.
DOI PMID |
14. | Zheng X. Guiding principle of clinical research on new drugs of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Beijing: Medic-Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology Publishing House, 2002: 143. |
15. |
Tagami T, Matsui H, Horiguchi H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H. Antithrombin and mortality in severe pneumonia patients with sepsis‐associated disseminated intravascular coagulation: an observational nationwide study. J Thromb Haemost 2014; 12: 1470-9.
DOI PMID |
16. |
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801-10.
DOI PMID |
17. | Lu S, Zhao P, Zhao L, Dong W, Xue H, Yang C. Influence of dachengqi decoction adjuvant therapy on pH, PaO2/FiO2 and oxidative stress status of patients with ARDS. Xian Dai Sheng Wu Yi Xue Jin Zhan 2017; 17: 5501-4. |
18. | Jiang T, Gao B, Zhou L, et al. Clinical efficacy of Jiawei Xuanbai Chengqi Tang on patients with mechanical ventilation in ARDS. Zhong Guo Shi Yan Fang Ji Xue Za Zhi 2013; 19: 300-3. |
19. | Wang ZC, Xue P, Huang ZW. Effect of an early application of Chaiqin Chengqi decoction in treating severe acute pancreatitis complicated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Zhong Guo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2009; 29: 322-4. |
20. | Su YJ, Hu R, Li YH, et al. Clinical observation of baofei jiejing mixture in the treatment of mild acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by sepsis. Xian Dai Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2018; 27: 685-8. |
21. | Liang X, Luo C, Li Y, et al. Study on intervention mechanism of Yiqi Huayu Jiedu decoction on ARDS based on network pharmacology. Evid-Based Compl Alt 2020; 2020: 4782470. |
22. |
Lu X, Ma W, Fan B, et al, Integrating network pharmacology, transcriptome and artificial intelligence for investigating into the effect and mechanism of Ning Fei Ping Xue decoction against the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12: 731377.
DOI URL |
23. |
Liu J, Chen Q, Liu S, Yang X, Zhang Y, Huang F. Sini decoction alleviates E. coli induced acute lung injury in mice via equilibrating ACE-AngII-AT1R and ACE2-Ang-(1-7)-Mas axis. Life Sci 2018; 208: 139-48.
DOI URL |
24. |
Deng G, He H, Chen Z, et al. Lianqinjiedu decoction attenuates LPS-induced inflammation and acute lung injury in rats via TLR4/NF-κB pathway. Biomed Pharmacothe 2017; 96: 148-52.
DOI URL |
25. |
Ruan Y, Fan Y, Xie Y, et al. Modified xiaoqinglong decoction alleviates lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice by regulating arachidonic acid metabolism and exerting anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2022; 305: 1672-81.
DOI URL |
26. |
Zhao J, Chen J, Tang W, Wan L, Xiong W, Zhou L. Effect of Da-cheng-qi decoction on pancreatitis-associated lung injury in patients and anti-inflammatory responses in rat models. Pharm Biol 2011; 49: 1058-64.
DOI PMID |
27. | Li MJ, Ji YM, Guo L, et al. Cai wanru’s experience in treating acute lung injury. Zhejiang Zhong Yi Yao Da Xue Xue Bao 2019; 43: 959-61. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
Sponsored by China Association of Chinese Medicine
& China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences
16 Nanxiaojie, Dongzhimen Nei, Beijing, China. 100700 Email: jtcmen@126.com
Copyright 2020 Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine. All rights reserved.