Objective:To research the efficacy of treating chronic stable angina by short-term enhanced external counter-pulsation and long-term enhanced external counter-pulsation.Method:The 289 chronic stable angina patients were randomly assigned to the control group(group one n=95),the short-term treatment group by enhanced external counter-pulsation(group two n=97)and the long-term treatment group by enhanced external counter-pulsation(group three n=95). The follow-up period was 3 months. Then the rate of angina relief,the endpoint of angina scores and SF-36 score were compared after the treatment.Result:In the end of follow-up,the effective rate of group one,group two and group three were 80.00%,91.75%,94.74%respectively. Group two and group three were superior to group one in the indicators such as the rate of angina relief,the endpoint of angina scores and SF-36 score(P<0.05),but there was no significant difference between group two and group three(P>0.05).Conclusion:There is no difference in treating chronic stable angina between the short-term and long-term enhanced external counter-pulsation,which are superior to drug therapy.% 目的：研究短疗程体外反搏与长疗程体外反搏治疗慢性稳定型心绞痛的疗效。方法：将287例慢性稳定型心绞痛患者随机分为对照组（Ⅰ组n=95）、短疗程体外反搏治疗组（Ⅱ组n=97）、长疗程体外反搏治疗组（Ⅲ组n=95），随访时间为三个月，比较三组治疗后的心绞痛缓解率、心绞痛分级、SF-36评分。结果：随访结束时，心绞痛患者治疗的有效率分别为：Ⅰ组80.00%、Ⅱ组91.75%、Ⅲ组94.74%；Ⅱ组与Ⅲ组在心绞痛缓解率、心绞痛分级、SF-36评分等指标上明显优于Ⅰ组（P<0.05）；但Ⅱ组与Ⅲ组组间比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：短疗程与长疗程体外反搏在治疗慢性稳定型心绞痛疗效相近，且均优于单纯药物治疗。
展开▼
