针刺配合灸法治疗慢性疲劳综合征的临床随机对照研究

目的:观察、对比针刺法及针加灸法治疗慢性疲劳综合征(chronic fatigue syndrome,CFS)的临床疗效。方法:将133例CFS患者随机分为3组,即针刺组(n=47)、针加灸组(n=44)及非穴组(n=42)。针刺组予针刺百会、膻中、气海、关元、足三里、合谷、太冲、三阴交治疗;针加灸组予膻中、合谷、太冲、三阴交针刺治疗,百会、气海、关元、足三里温针灸治疗;非穴组在上两组所选腧穴周围1~2cm非腧穴点给予针刺。均留针30min,每日1次,10次为一疗程,共治疗2个疗程。应用Chalder疲劳量表和患者满意度自评量表对治疗后疲劳改善情况及治疗效果给予评估。结果:(1)疲劳积分改善情况:与治疗前比较,针刺组及针加灸组治疗后体力疲劳积分、脑力疲劳积分及疲劳总积分显著降低(P0.05,P0.01);与非穴组相比,治疗后针刺组及针加灸组上述3项指标显著降低(P0.05,P0.01);治疗后针加灸组的体力疲劳积分及疲劳总积分显著低于针刺组(P0.05)。(2)各组临床满意度比较:针加灸组满意率明显高于针刺组和非穴组(P0.05),而针刺组与非穴组相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:无论单纯针刺法或温针灸法治疗CFS均具有良好的疗效,二者相比,又以温针灸法更优。

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients

Objective To observe the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS).Methods A total of 133 CFS patients were randomized into acupuncture group(47cases),warm-needling group(44cases)and non-acupoint group(42cases).Manual acupuncture(MA)stimulation was applied to Baihui(GV 20),Danzhong(CV 17),Qihai(CV 6),Guanyuan(CV 4),bilateral Zusanli(ST 36),Hegu(LI 4),Taichong(LR 3)and Sanyinjiao(SP 6)for patients in the acupuncture group.For patients in the warm-needling group,moxa-heated needle was applied to Baihui(GV 20),Qihai(CV 6),Guanyuan(CV 4)and bilateral Zusanli(ST 36).Non-acupoints were located about 1-2cm beside the Baihui(GV 20),Danzhong(CV 17),Qihai(CV 6),Guanyuan(CV 4),Zusanli(ST 36),Taichong(LR 3),Sanyinjiao(SP 6)and Hegu(LI 4).The treatment was given once daily for 20 days.The Chalder Fatigue Scale(14-item fatigue scale)was adopted to evaluate the changes of CFS before and after the treatment.Results In comparison with pre-treatment,the scores of Chalder Fatigue Scale including physical and mental fatigue and total score were significantly decreased in both acupuncture and warm-needling groups(P<0.05,P<0.01),but not in the non-acupoint group(P>0.05)except physical score(P<0.05).The physical,mental and total scores of the acupuncture and warm-needling groups were significantly lower than those of the non-acupoint group(P<0.05,P<0.01),while the physical and total scores of the warm-needling group were markedly lower than those of the acupuncture group(P<0.05).After the treatment,the CFS patients' satisfactory rates of the acupuncture,warm-needling and non-acupoint groups were 36.2%(17/47),72.7%(32/44)and 35.7%(15/42),respectively.Conclusion Both MA and warm-needling interventions have a good therapeutic effect in the treatment of CFS patients,while the latter is obviously better.