ABSTRACT
This is a study based on hospital intensive monitoring to explore medication use of Diemailing Kudiezi injection(one Chinese herbal medicine injection) in real word in the patients with cerebral infarction. The active monitoring model was adopted and hospital intensive monitoring on safety of 7 189 cases of patients with cerebral infarction was conducted to obtain the drug use information of Diemailing injection. The results were analyzed by using statistical description and association rule method. The statistical description and association rule analysis were conducted based on patients' basic demographic characteristics, use of Diemailing injection and combined use of drugs. Sixty-two percent(4 437/7 189) of the patients were from traditional Chinese medicine hospitals as compared with 39%(2 752/7 189) from western medicine hospitals; 84%(6 003/7 189) of the patients were from tertiary hospitals as compared with 16%(1 186/7 189) from second-class hospitals. The hospitals were mostly located in north China. Drug related indicators such as a single dripping speed, stash time after allocating transfusion, duration of injection, and injecting room temperature were not noted in instruction manual. It was also found that there were off label use in the practice, for instance, non-intravenous infusion, >14 d treatment course, use of non-designated solvent, and a single dose>40 mL or<10 mL. Analysis of association rules showed that only Edaravone among the most frequent combined drugs was listed in the current guideline in China, and the other three most frequent combined drugs deproteinized calf blood extractive injection, Cinepazide Maleate injection and Alprostadil injection were used with little evidence. Diemailing＋Aspirin＋Alprostadil was the most common combined use in our study, but the recommended clopidogrel＋Aspirin was not found in this study. The drug use situation of Diemailing injection in the real world was obtained by data analysis on large size samples, providing basic reference information for clinicians and researchers. However, efficacy was not concerned in this study, so efficacy-related information could not be explained.