论文部分内容阅读
目的中西医结合冠心病单元疗法治疗急性冠脉综合征(ACS)的成本效果分析。方法将入选的ACS病例随机分为中西医结合冠心病单元组(治疗组)和中西医结合非冠心病单元组(对照组)。两组患者在遵循相关指南予以西医常规诊疗的同时,治疗组依照辨证施治方案规范中医诊疗,并进行中医特色情志干预及健康教育康复指导等辅助治疗;对照组采用传统的中医诊疗,不进行辅助治疗。对两种治疗方案进行成本效果分析。结果共147例纳入研究,脱落18例,129例纳入分析,分为治疗组72例、对照组57例。治疗组与对照组心绞痛疗效的总有效率分别为91.67%和82.46%(P<0.05);治疗组、对照组成本效果比分别为123.91元和147.94元,治疗组低于对照组;治疗组、对照组调整后成本效果比分别为114.83元和137.05元,治疗组仍低于对照组。结论中西医结合冠心病单元疗法治疗ACS较非单元治疗更加经济、有效。
Objective To analyze the cost-effectiveness of combined traditional Chinese and western medicine in treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods ACS cases were randomly divided into TCM and WM combined coronary heart disease unit group (treatment group) and TCM-WM combined non-coronary heart disease unit group (control group). The two groups of patients follow the relevant guidelines to Western routine diagnosis and treatment at the same time, the treatment group according to syndrome differentiation program standard Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment of Chinese characteristics emotional intervention and health education rehabilitation guidance and other adjuvant therapy; control group using traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment, not Adjuvant treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the two treatment options. Results A total of 147 cases were included in the study, 18 cases were lost and 129 cases were included in the analysis. There were 72 cases in the treatment group and 57 cases in the control group. The total effective rates of angina pectoris in treatment group and control group were 91.67% and 82.46%, respectively (P <0.05). The cost-effectiveness ratio of treatment group and control group were 123.91 yuan and 147.94 yuan respectively, and the treatment group was lower than the control group. The adjusted cost-effectiveness ratio of the control group was 114.83 yuan and 137.05 yuan, the treatment group is still lower than the control group. Conclusion TCM and WM combined coronary heart disease unit therapy is more economical and effective than non-unit therapy.