Efficacy study on the treatment of functional dyspepsia with liver stomach disharmony syndrome with Chaihu Shugan Powder
-
摘要: 目的 观察柴胡疏肝散治疗功能性消化不良(FD)肝胃不和证的临床疗效。方法 将94例患者随机分为研究组(47例)和对照组(47例),分别给予柴胡疏肝散和柴胡疏肝散安慰剂治疗,疗程均为4周。观察2组患者治疗前后的中医证候总评分、单项症状评分、腹诊体征(腹力、心下痞、胸胁苦满、腹温)评分及B超胃排空率指标变化情况。结果 研究组总有效率为80.00%,显著高于对照组的23.81%(P < 0.05);研究组中医证候总评分治疗前后差值均显著高于对照组(P < 0.05);研究组胃脘胀满或疼痛、两胁胀满、每因情志不畅而发作或加重、心烦、善叹息评分治疗前后差值均显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),2组嗳气频作评分治疗前后差值比较均差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组腹力、心下痞、胸胁苦满评分治疗前后差值均显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),2组鸠尾穴、中脘穴腹温治疗前后差值比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组胃底和胃窦30 min,胃底、胃体和胃窦60 min胃排空率治疗前后差值均显著高于对照组(P < 0.05),胃体30 min胃排空率治疗前后差值与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 柴胡疏肝散可有效改善FD肝胃不和证患者的临床症状及腹诊体征,促进胃动力。Abstract: Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of Chaihu Shugan Powder in the treatment of functional dyspepsia with liver stomach disharmony syndrome.Methods Ninety-four patients were randomly divided into the study group(47 patients) and the control group(47 patients), and were treated with Chaihu Shugan Powder and Chaihu Shugan Powder placebo, respectively, and the duration of treatment was 4 weeks in both groups. The total Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) symptom score, single symptom score, abdominal diagnostic signs(abdominal force, epigastric fullness, chest and bitter fullness, abdominal temperature) scores, ultrasound gastric emptying rate were observed before and after treatment in the two groups.Results The total effective rate of the study group was 80.00%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group, which was 23.81%(P < 0.05); the difference in the total TCM evidence scores before and after treatment was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group(P < 0.05); the differences in the distention or pain in the stomach and epigastric region, distention and fullness in the two hypochondria, attack or aggravation due to emotional disorders, vexation and sighing scores of the study group were significantly higher than those of the control group before and after treatment(P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment for belching frequency scores(P>0.05); the difference before and after treatment of abdominal force, epigastric fullness, chest and bitter fullness score were significantly higher in the study group than that of the control group(P < 0.05), and the difference before and after treatment of abdominal temperature in the two groups at the jiuwei point and the zhongwan point were not statistically significant(P>0.05); the difference between the gastric emptying rate before and after treatment of the gastric fundus and sinus for 30 min, gastric fundus, gastric body, and gastric sinus for 60 min in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group(P < 0.05), and the difference between the gastric emptying rate before and after treatment of the gastric body for 30 min and that of the control group was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion Chaihu Shugan Powder can effectively improve the clinical symptoms and abdominal diagnostic signs in patients with FD liver and stomach disharmony, promote gastric motility.
-
-
表 1 2组患者的临床资料比较
例,X±S 组别 例数 性别 年龄/岁 病程/月 男 女 研究组 45 14 31 36.29±9.12 40.67±16.68 对照组 42 19 23 39.12±10.22 38.71±15.69 χ2/t 1.842 -1.364 0.561 P 0.175 0.176 0.576 表 2 2组患者临床疗效比较
例 组别 例数 痊愈 显效 有效 无效 总有效率/% χ2 P 研究组 45 1 4 31 9 80.00 67.000 < 0.001 对照组 42 0 2 8 32 23.81 表 3 2组患者中医证候总评分比较
分,X±S 组别 例数 治疗前 治疗后 治疗前后差值 t P 研究组 45 11.72±4.10 6.16±3.12 5.56±2.87 6.449 < 0.001 对照组 42 10.81±3.05 9.07±3.38 1.74±0.49 表 4 2组患者中医单项症状评分比较
分,M(P25,P75) 症状 治疗前 治疗后 治疗前后差值 Z P 胃脘胀满或疼痛 -4.505 < 0.001 研究组 4.00(2.00,6.00) 2.00(1.50,2.00) 2.00(2.00,2.50) 对照组 4.00(2.00,6.00) 2.00(2.00,4.00) 0.00(0.00,2.00) 两胁胀痛 -3.395 0.001 研究组 2.00(0.00,4.00) 2.00(0.00,2.00) 2.00(0.00,2.00) 对照组 2.00(2.00,4.00) 2.00(0.00,4.00) 0.00(0.00,0.00) 每因情志不畅而发作或加重 -2.809 0.005 研究组 2.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 对照组 2.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(0.75,2.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 心烦 -3.047 0.002 研究组 1.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 对照组 1.00(0.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,1.25) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 嗳气频作 -1.777 0.076 研究组 1.00(0.75,2.00) 1.00(0.00,1.25) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 对照组 1.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,2.00) 0.00(0.00,0.00) 善叹息 -2.242 0.025 研究组 1.00(0.00,2.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 对照组 1.00(0.00,1.25) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 0.00(0.00,0.00) 表 5 2组患者腹力、心下痞、胸胁苦满评分比较分,M(P25,P75)
体征 治疗前 治疗后 治疗前后差值 Z P 腹力 -3.006 0.003 研究组 4.00(3.00,4.25) 3.00(3.00,3.00) 0.50(0.00,1.00) 对照组 4.00(3.00,4.00) 4.00(3.00,4.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 心下痞 -4.740 < 0.001 研究组 2.00(2.00,3.00) 1.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(1.00,1.00) 对照组 2.00(2.00,2.25) 2.00(1.00,2.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 胸胁苦满 -2.004 0.045 研究组 2.00(1.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,2.00) 1.00(0.00,1.00) 对照组 2.00(1.00,2.00) 2.00(1.00,2.00) 0.00(0.00,1.00) 表 6 2组患者腹温比较
℃,X±S 穴位 治疗前 治疗后 治疗前后差值 t P 鸠尾穴 -0.273 0.786 研究组 36.79±0.35 36.72±0.44 0.07±0.32 对照组 36.65±0.43 36.59±0.35 0.06±0.38 中脘穴 -0.275 0.785 研究组 36.64±0.40 36.57±0.52 0.07±0.46 对照组 36.51±0.32 36.42±0.38 0.09±0.35 表 7 2组患者B超GER比较
%,X±S 部位 治疗前 治疗后 治疗前后差值 t P 胃底GER30 -2.425 0.017 研究组 25.48±13.56 37.69±16.79 12.21±18.61 对照组 26.21±10.89 29.70±10.83 3.49±14.52 胃体GER30 -1.869 0.065 研究组 26.98±11.16 37.45±17.22 10.46±23.15 对照组 26.74±11.12 29.45±9.86 2.71±14.11 胃窦GER30 -2.093 0.039 研究组 24.17±10.26 34.81±11.97 10.65±16.21 对照组 25.45±11.24 28.52±15.71 3.07±17.59 胃底GER60 -3.943 < 0.001 研究组 46.70±14.13 65.98±15.37 19.28±19.14 对照组 44.79±11.03 49.28±13.12 4.49±15.43 胃体GER60 -4.299 < 0.001 研究组 47.18±11.75 65.46±12.68 18.28±18.04 对照组 45.74±9.69 49.81±10.13 4.06±11.98 胃窦GER60 -3.688 < 0.001 研究组 45.43±17.36 63.63±13.54 18.20±17.15 对照组 43.42±11.45 48.57±15.36 5.16±15.74 -
[1] Aziz I, Palsson OS, Törnbl H, et al. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and associations for symptom-based Rome IV functional dyspepsia in adults in the USA, Canada, and the UK: a cross-sectional population-based study[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018, 3(4): 252-262. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30003-7
[2] 杨倩, 蒋潇洒, 乔万海, 等. 陕西省农村成人胃食管反流病、功能性消化不良和肠易激综合征的重叠患病调查[J]. 中华消化杂志, 2021, 41(8): 522-527.
[3] 伍梅, 韩冬梅, 李雪云, 等. 在校大学生功能性胃肠疾病调查及影响因素分析[J]. 护理实践与研究, 2020, 17(2): 1-4. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HLSJ202002002.htm
[4] 杨泽瑜. 功能性消化不良中医证型分布特点及其相关因素的调查研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江中医药大学, 2022.
[5] 刘静. 柴胡疏肝散治疗功能性消化不良的系统评价和Meta分析[D]. 武汉: 湖北中医药大学, 2020.
[6] 孟淼, 吴冬, 冯硕. 耳甲电针联合柴胡疏肝散对功能性消化不良患者胃肠激素水平及生活质量的影响[J]. 中国中西医结合消化杂志, 2022, 30(9): 638-642. https://zxyxh.whuhzzs.com/article/doi/10.3969/j.issn.1671-038X.2022.09.05
[7] 王颖. 穴位贴敷联合柴胡疏肝散口服治疗功能性消化不良临床观察[J]. 中国中医药现代远程教育, 2021, 19(16): 111-112. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZZYY202116042.htm
[8] 黄曦亮, 宋鸿, 黎明. 柴胡疏肝散联合西药治疗肝胃不和型功能性消化不良临床观察[J]. 中国民族民间医药, 2020, 29(16): 96-98. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MZMJ202016025.htm
[9] 方秀才(译). 罗马Ⅳ: 功能性胃肠病[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2016: 558.
[10] 张声生, 赵鲁卿. 功能性消化不良中医诊疗专家共识意见(2017)[J]. 中华中医药杂志, 2017, 32(6): 2595-2598. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BXYY201706072.htm
[11] 许卫华. 中医辨证治疗功能性消化不良的疗效评价以及对核素胃排空影响的多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究[D]. 北京: 北京中医药大学, 2013.
[12] 曾彦博, 杜奕奇, 潘洋, 等. 甘海胃康胶囊治疗功能性消化不良的前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床研究[J]. 中华消化杂志, 2022, 42(8): 557-564.
[13] 吕冉, 王微, 刘丽娟, 等. 柴胡疏肝散加减对肝胃气滞型功能性消化不良的症状、焦虑抑郁以及核素胃排空的影响[J]. 中华中医药杂志, 2022, 37(3): 1815-1818. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BXYY202203138.htm
[14] 王瑞平. 随机对照临床试验设计中的样本量估算方法[J]. 上海医药, 2023, 44(1): 48-52. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SYIY202301013.htm
[15] 刘宁, 王宁元, 赵进喜, 等. 明辨方证, 腹诊先行; 经方应用, 当识腹证[J]. 环球中医药, 2018, 11(11): 1697-1699. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HQZY202001011.htm
[16] 吴赤球, 裘思英, 范敬国, 等. 超声单平面法检测成年人胃排空率的初步研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2020, 17(10): 953-957. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHCD202010004.htm
[17] Esterita T, Dewi S, Suryatenggara FG, et al. Association of Functional Dyspepsia with Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review[J]. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, 2021, 30(2): 259-266.
[18] Tavakoli T, Hoseini M, Tabatabaee TSJ, et al. Comparison of dialectical behavior therapy and anti-anxiety medication on anxiety and digestive symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia[J]. J Res Med Sci, 2020, 25: 59.
[19] Huang Q, Zheng SP, Cai T, et al. Factors associated with mood disorders and the efficacy of the targeted treatment of functional dyspepsia: A randomized clinical trial[J]. Front Med(Lausanne), 2022, 9: 859661.
[20] 曾云丽, 陈晓容, 王欢, 等. 柴胡皂苷A对兔离体小肠平滑肌的舒张作用及其机制[J]. 西部中医药, 2020, 33(11): 17-20. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GSZY202011005.htm
[21] 龚彦溶. 陈皮枳壳配伍柴胡对应激法致小鼠功能性消化不良的影响[D]. 广州: 广州中医药大学, 2018.
[22] 钟民勇, 庹福临, 乔日发, 等. 枳壳理气质量标志物的有效性验证[J]. 中药新药与临床药理, 2022, 33(3): 281-286. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZYXY202203001.htm
[23] 王琦. 王琦中医腹诊研究与临床[M]. 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2022: 10.
[24] Jiang SM, Jia L, Lei XG, et al. Incidence and psychological-behavioral characteristics of refractory functional dyspepsia: A large, multi-center, prospective investigation from China[J]. World J Gastroenterol. 2015, 21(6): 1932-1937.
-