Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2024
Effects of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine for acute pancreatitis: A real-world study in a tertiary teaching hospital.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deng Lihui, Chen Zhiyao, Zhu Ping, Hu Cheng, Jin Tao, Wang Xinwei, Li Lan, Lin Ziqi, Guo Jia, Yang Xiaonan, Shi Na, Zhang Xiaoxin, Yang Xinmin, Jiang Kun, Ma Yun, Tan Qingyuan, Li Ling, Wang Wen, Huang Wei, Sun Xin, Xia Qing
Аннотация
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate whether integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) is more effective than WM for acute pancreatitis (AP).
METHODS: Patients with AP were enrolled and divided into the TCM and WM (TCM&WM) and WM groups according to the therapeutic protocol in real clinical settings. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching, which was to adjust confounding factors. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas the secondary outcomes were organ failure, organ supportive therapies, local complications, hospitalization cost, and length of hospital stay. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Of 5442 patients with AP, 4691 and 751 were included in the TCM&WM and WM groups, respectively. After PSM, patient baseline characteristics were well balanced. Compared with the WM group (n = 734), the TCM&WM group (n = 2096) had lower overall mortality rate (1.7% vs. 3.4%; risk ratio, 0.482; 95% confidence interval, 0.286-0.810; p = 0.005). The TCM&WM group was associated with lower risk of persistent renal failure, multiple organ failure, and infection, lower utilization of organ supportive therapies, shortened lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stay, and lower hospital costs. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Subgroup analysis favored TCM&WM treatment for patients aged < 60 years, with hypertriglyceridic etiology, and with admission interval between 24 and 48 h.
CONCLUSION: TCM&WM treatment can achieve lower risks of mortality and organ failure and better economic effectiveness in patients with AP than WM treatment. This study provides a promising alternative of TCM&WM treatment for AP in the real-world setting.
METHODS: Patients with AP were enrolled and divided into the TCM and WM (TCM&WM) and WM groups according to the therapeutic protocol in real clinical settings. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching, which was to adjust confounding factors. The primary outcome was mortality, whereas the secondary outcomes were organ failure, organ supportive therapies, local complications, hospitalization cost, and length of hospital stay. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Of 5442 patients with AP, 4691 and 751 were included in the TCM&WM and WM groups, respectively. After PSM, patient baseline characteristics were well balanced. Compared with the WM group (n = 734), the TCM&WM group (n = 2096) had lower overall mortality rate (1.7% vs. 3.4%; risk ratio, 0.482; 95% confidence interval, 0.286-0.810; p = 0.005). The TCM&WM group was associated with lower risk of persistent renal failure, multiple organ failure, and infection, lower utilization of organ supportive therapies, shortened lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stay, and lower hospital costs. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Subgroup analysis favored TCM&WM treatment for patients aged < 60 years, with hypertriglyceridic etiology, and with admission interval between 24 and 48 h.
CONCLUSION: TCM&WM treatment can achieve lower risks of mortality and organ failure and better economic effectiveness in patients with AP than WM treatment. This study provides a promising alternative of TCM&WM treatment for AP in the real-world setting.