Effectiveness and safety of Linggui Zhugan decoction for the treatment of premature contraction in patients with coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Linggui Zhugan decoction (LZD) as an adjunct treatment of premature contraction in patients with coronary heart disease. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov Cochrane Library, Chinese Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, Sino Med, and VIP database were searched from inception until July 2022. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of LZD combined with conventional antiarrhythmic drugs in treating premature contraction in patients with coronary heart disease compared to conventional antiarrhythmic drugs only. The clinical effectiveness was considered as the primary outcome, and the times of premature junctional beats in 24 h after treatment along with adverse reactions were considered secondary outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1. and RStudio software. A total of 14 studies including 1,236 participants were included. The primary outcome indicated that, compared with antiarrhythmic drugs alone (especially β receptor blockers), the combination of LZD and conventional antiarrhythmic drugs resulted in higher clinical effectiveness (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: [1.22,1.36]) and lower number of premature junctional beats in 24 h (MD = -71.14, 95% CI: [-76.23, -66.06]) at end-of-intervention. The differences in adverse reactions (RR = 0.42, 95%CI: [0.15, 1.14], = 0.09) were not significant. The risk of bias was marginally high among the studies. Funnel plot and Harbord's test ( = 1.63, = 0.1346) indicated no existence of publication bias. The current evidence shows that LZD can increase the effectiveness of conventional antiarrhythmic drugs for treating premature contraction in patients with coronary heart disease. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the high overall risk of bias. Future studies with appropriate randomization and double-blind methods are warranted to confirm these findings. [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=296628], identifier [CRD42022296628].