Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jul 11:2018:6207524.
doi: 10.1155/2018/6207524. eCollection 2018.

Effectiveness and Safety of Compound Chinese Medicine plus Routine Western Medicine in In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Lu Liu  1   2 , Jing Liu  1   2 , Qun Gao  1   2 , Yang Wu  1   2 , Jinjin Lu  1   2 , Jie Wan  1   3 , Yan Li  1   2 , Xiaoyun Cui  1   2 , Kun Zhou  1   4 , Wenhao Jia  1   2 , Yanchao Huang  1   2 , Wenbai Qu  1   2 , Qian Lin  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Effectiveness and Safety of Compound Chinese Medicine plus Routine Western Medicine in In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Lu Liu et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. .

Abstract

Objective: To examine the effects and safety of oral compound Chinese medicine (CCM) plus routine western medicine (RWM) in in-stent restenosis (ISR).

Methods: Various electronic databases (CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched until April 2017. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5.3 and STATA 12.0 software. Moreover, funnel plot and Egger's publication bias plots were analysed to identify publication bias and adverse reactions were reported. A sensitive analysis was carried out according to the quality score.

Results: In all, 40 RCTs involving 4536 patients were selected for this review. The pooled estimates of three studies showed that the benefit to the number of ISRs (NoR) was more substantial for CCM plus RWM than for RWM alone (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.57, P = 0.001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.81). The rate of ISR was significantly lower for CCM plus RWM than for the same RWM alone (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.53, P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.95). CCM plus RWM benefitted the rate of ISR when a CM placebo plus RWM was used as the control intervention (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.57, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.95). The difference of adverse reactions was not significant. For secondary outcomes, the CCM plus RWM group did not reduce the rates of revascularization and cardiac death, but it did reduce the rate of recurrent angina over the results observed in the RWM alone group. In addition, funnel plot and Egger's publication bias plot indicated that there was publication bias. The association between the use of CCM plus RWM and RWM alone remained significant after the sensitivity analysis excluding studies with low quality score (quality score ⩽ 4) with a pooled RR of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.34-0.50).

Conclusion: Oral CCM plus RWM clearly benefitted patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because it prevented and treated ISR better than was observed for either RWM alone or a CM placebo plus RWM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of risk of bias in included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of CCM plus RWM in IRS.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel Plot of CCM plus RWM versus RWM.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Egger's publication bias plot for CCM plus RWM vs RWM in cases of ISR.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meta-analysis of CCM plus RWM versus RWM in cases of ISR.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Meta-analysis of different CCM plus RWM versus RWM in cases of ISR.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Sensitivity analysis excluding studies with low quality score of CCM plus RWM versus RWM in cases of ISR.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Meta-analysis of adverse reactions in the CCM plus RWM versus RWM groups.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Meta-analysis of revascularization in CCM plus RWM versus RWM alone.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Meta-analysis of myocardial infarction in CCM plus RWM versus RWM.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Meta-analysis of cardiac mortality in CCM plus RWM versus RWM.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Meta-analysis of recurrent angina in CCM plus RWM versus RWM.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Grech E. D. ABC of interventional cardiology: percutaneous coronary intervention. I: history and development. British Medical Journal. 2003;326(7398):1080–1082. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1080. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moses J. W., Leon M. B., Popma J. J., et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;349(14):1315–1323. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa035071. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhao L.-P., Xu W.-T., Wang L., et al. Influence of insulin resistance on in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing coronary drug-eluting stent implantation after long-term angiographic follow-up. Coronary Artery Disease. 2016;26(1):5–10. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000170. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang X. Expert consensus on TCM diagnosis and treatment of chest pain after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2014;55(13):1167–1170.
    1. Ren Y., Chen K.-J., Ruan X.-M. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on preventing and treating restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with Chinese medicine. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi Jiehe Zazhi. 2008;28(7):597–601. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources