Traditional herbal medicine Oryeongsan for heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and objective: Heart failure (HF) is associated with high mortality and hospitalization rates, and its prevalence increases with age. As congestion is the most common cause of hospitalization for HF, diuretics are the most prescribed drugs. However, these agents have side effects due to electrolyte imbalance. In Asian countries, Oryeongsan (ORS) and its variants are used to manage fluid imbalances, including HF congestion. Therefore, ORS is considered a complementary treatment to overcome the limitations of diuretics. This review aimed to elucidate the safety and effectiveness of ORS combined with conventional Western medicine (CWM) for HF. Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, CiNii, CNKI, and ScienceON databases to retrieve relevant studies published up to July 2024. Two independent investigators were involved in the data collection and analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of ORS and its variants in combination with CWM as treatments for HF were selected. The outcome measures included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), total effective rate (TER), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), 6-min Walk Test (6MWT), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF-Q), serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, 24-h urine volume, Lee's score, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade I ratio for effectiveness; and incidence of adverse events (AEs) for safety. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Results: Fifty-nine RCTs that comprised 5069 participants and compared CWM combined with ORS and its variants (treatment group) to CWM alone or CWM plus placebo (control group) were included. Based on the meta-analysis, LVEF was found to significantly improve (mean difference: 6.36, 95 % confidence interval: 5.11 to 7.61, P < 0.00001) in the treatment group. TER, LVEDD, LVESD, 6MWT, MLHF-Q, serum BNP and NT-proBNP levels, 24-h urine volume, Lee's score, and NYHA grade I ratio were also significantly improved in the treatment group compared with the control group with CWM alone. LVEF and TER were improved without significance in the treatment group compared with the control group with CWM plus placebo. The incidence of AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusions: Combining CWM with ORS or its variants was more effective than CWM alone in managing HF and could serve as a relatively safe treatment for HF. Further studies are required to validate the findings of the present study.