针刺配合揿针治疗卒中后轻中度抑郁的疗效观察

摘要

目的 观察针刺配合揿针治疗卒中后轻中度抑郁的临床疗效.方法 将90例卒中后轻中度抑郁患者随机分为A组、B组和C组,每组30例.3组均取百会、神庭、印堂穴,A组采用针刺配合揿针治疗,B组采用单纯揿针治疗,C组采用针刺配合假针治疗.观察3组治疗前后汉密尔顿抑郁量表24项(HDRS)评分及Barthel指数(BI)评分的变化情况,并比较3组临床疗效.结果 3组治疗后HDRS评分和BI评分与同组治疗前比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.01).A组和B组治疗后HDRS评分和BI评分与C组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).A组总有效率为90.0％,B组为86.7％,C组为73.3％.A组和B组总有效率与C组比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.01,P<0.05).结论 针刺配合揿针与单纯揿针治疗均是治疗卒中后轻中度抑郁的有效方法,两者疗效相似.%Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of acupuncture plus intradermal needle in treating mild-to-moderate post-stroke depression (PSD). Method Ninty patients with mild-to-moderate PSD were randomized into group A, B and C, with 30 cases in each group. All the groups were intervened by selecting Baihui (GV20), Shenting (GV24) and Yintang (GV29). Group A received acupuncture plus intradermal needle; group B, intradermal needle alone; group C, acupuncture plus sham acupuncture. Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS) score and Barthel index (BI) score in the three groups were observed before and at the end of the treatment, and the clinical efficacies of the three groups were compared. Result The HDRS score and BI score showed a significant change after the treatment in the three groups (P<0.01). After the treatment, the HDRS score and BI score in the group A and group B was significantly different from those in group C (P<0.05). The total effective rate was 90.0％ in group A versus 86.7％in group B, and 73.3％ in group C; there was a statistically significant difference between group C and group A or B (P<0.01, P<0.05). Conclusion Both acupuncture plus intradermal needle and intradermal needle alone are effective approaches in treating mild-to-moderate PSD. The treatment efficacy of these two methods is similar.