Evidence Hub

Effect of Fu Zheng Jie Du Formula on outcomes in patients with severe pneumonia receiving prone ventilation: a retrospective cohort study

Hai-Rong Cai, Si-Cong Luo, Xin-Gui Cai, T. Lai, Shuai Zhao, Wei-Zhang Zhang, Jie-Qin Zhuang, Zhi-Shang Li et al.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2024

188 participants

Abstract

Background The effect of combining prone ventilation with traditional Chinese medicine on severe pneumonia remains unclear. Objective To evaluate the effect of Fu Zheng Jie Du Formula (FZJDF) combined with prone ventilation on clinical outcomes in patients with severe pneumonia. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study included 188 severe pneumonia patients admitted to the ICU from January 2022 to December 2023. Patients were divided into an FZJD group (receiving FZJDF for 7 days plus prone ventilation) and a non-FZJD group (prone ventilation only). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio after treatment. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, PaCO2, lactic acid levels, APACHE II score, SOFA score, Chinese Medicine Score, inflammatory markers, and time to symptom resolution. Results After PSM, 32 patients were included in each group. Compared to the non-FZJD group, the FZJD group showed significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratios, lower PaCO2, and lower lactic acid levels after treatment (p < 0.05 for all). The FZJD group also had significantly lower APACHE II scores, SOFA scores, Chinese Medicine Scores, and levels of WBC, PCT, hs-CRP, and IL-6 (p < 0.05 for all). Time to symptom resolution, including duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, time to fever resolution, time to cough resolution,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 188 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free