3.9 Article

The Effect of Warming of the Abdomen and of Herbal Medicine on Superior Mesenteric Artery Blood Flow - a Pilot Study

期刊

FORSCHENDE KOMPLEMENTARMEDIZIN
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 195-201

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000317845

关键词

Abdomen; Moxibustion; Herbal medicine; Thermal therapy; Daikenchuto; Superior mesenteric artery; Blood flow

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [21590753]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In traditional Japanese and Chinese medicine, warming the abdomen with moxibustion or herbal medicines has been used for various diseases. However, the effects of these therapies on hemodynamics have not been clear. We clarify the physiological effects of these therapies on the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) blood flow. Participants and Methods: 28 healthy male volunteers were randomly assigned to groups A and B. Group A (n = 14) underwent local thermal stimulation of the paraumbilical region for 20 min at a temperature of 40 degrees C; this simulated the heat and mechanical pressure effects of moxibustion. Group B (n = 14) took the herbal medicine Daikenchuto (TJ-100; 5.0 g) with distilled water. As a control, group C (n = 14) took distilled water alone. Blood flow volume in the SMA was measured by ultrasound from rest to 50 min after the start of each intervention. Results: The SMA blood flow volume increased significantly between 10 to 40 min after the start of thermal stimulation (p < 0.05), and it also increased significantly between 10 to 50 min after administration of TJ-100 (p < 0.01) as compared to the resting volume. However, SMA blood flow volume did not change significantly after administration of water alone. There was no significant difference in SMA blood flow changes between groups A and B. Conclusions: The results suggest that one of the physiological effects of warming the abdomen according to a traditional concept in thermal stimulation and herbal medicine is an increase of SMA blood flow volume.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据