Efficacy and safety of different traditional Chinese health exercises in patients with coronary heart disease combined with chronic heart failure: A network meta-analysis.

Abstract

Non-pharmacological treatments, particularly TCM health exercises, have garnered attention for their affordability, ease of access, and potential health advantages. Despite this interest, systematic and direct comparative studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with CHD-CHF remain scarce. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional treatment, conventional treatment integrated with aerobic endurance training, and various TCM health exercises in treating patients with CHD-CHF using NMA. The analysis was designed to provide a reference for developing treatment plans. To achieve this, literature databases were searched for RCTs on different TCM health exercises for CHD-CHF patients up to December 6, 2022. Major outcomes analyzed included NT-proBNP, LVEF, 6-minute walk test, MLHFQ, clinical effectiveness, and adverse event occurrence. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was employed to assess the risk of bias in the included RCT studies. Systematic review with NMA was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and Stata for cumulative ranking, and comparative adjustment funnel plot analysis. Traditional Chinese medicine gong methods included BaDuanJin (A) and TaiChiQuan (B). The NMA and SUCRA results revealed that: A + D and A + C + D were most likely to be the best interventions to improve NT-proBNP; B + D and A + C + D were most likely to be the best interventions to improve LVEF; A + D and A + C + D were the best interventions to improve 6WMT in CHD-CHF patients; B + C + D had the best effect on shrinking LVESD;A + D and B + C + D was likely the best interventions for contracting LVEDD;B + D and A + D were consistent in their capacity to improve MLHFQ in patients with CHD-CHF, but B + D had better efficacy. Unlike A + C + D, B + C + D was the best intervention to improve MLHFQ. In contrast with interventions, including Dand C + D, B + D was the most clinically effective intervention. Unlike interventions including B + C + D, C + D, and D, A + C + D was the most clinically efficient intervention. The findings of this NMA showed that traditional Chinese health exercises integrated with conventional treatment are more effective than conventional treatment (D) alone in patients with CHD-CHF, with A + D, B + D, B + C + D, and A + C + D considered potentially optimal treatment interventions.