Effect and safety of Chinese patent medicine capsules for recurrent angina pectoris after percutaneous coronary intervention: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
| |
Authors: | Yize Sun Zheyi Wang Chao Wang Zhuoran Tang Jinyu Shi Haibin Zhao |
| |
Affiliation: | aBeijing University of Chinese Medicine;bOriental Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. |
| |
Abstract: | Introduction:Recurrent angina pectoris after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common clinical syndrome, which seriously reduces the quality of life and health of patients, increases medical costs, and causes the risk of cardiogenic death. The efficacy of various western medicine improving angina symptoms has not been fully confirmed at the moment, whereas Chinese patent medicine capsules (CPMC) have been generally used in clinical practice due to the therapeutic efficacy and safety. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of CPMC for stable angina after PCI, designed to provide more evidence for clinical treatment.Methods:This protocol was based on the previous reporting items. We will search 3 English databases (PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and the Cochrane Library) and 3 Chinese databases (China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Chinese Biomedicine) until January 2020. RCTs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPMC for recurrent stable angina pectoris after PCI will be included. The primary outcome will be assessed by major adverse cardiovascular events and angina attack frequency. We will use the criteria provided by Cochrane risk of bias tool for quality evaluation and risk assessment, and use the Revman 5.3 for meta-analysis.Ethics and Dissemination:Ethical approval is not required for systematic review and meta-analysis. The results of this review will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42020164005. |
| |
Keywords: | angina pectoris Chinese patent medicine capsule meta-analysis percutaneous coronary intervention protocol systematic review |
|
|