Bloodletting at the ear apex for acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Despite innovative developments in acute stroke treatment techniques in modern society, many stroke survivors still experience complications, leading to a demand for complementary and alternative medicines, including traditional medicine. Bloodletting at the ear apex (BLEA) is a nonpharmacological intervention used for various diseases, including acute stroke, in traditional medicine in East Asian countries, including China and Korea. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of BLEA for acute stroke recovery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, AMED, CNKI, KoreaMed, ScienceOn, and OASIS databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of BLEA on acute stroke recovery. We systematically reviewed the literature published in academic journals up to September 8, 2024 and synthesized the data extracted from the final selected literature. The results of the meta-analysis are presented as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and GRADE methodology were used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 530 participants were included in this meta-analysis. In patients with acute stroke receiving conventional Western medical treatment, the addition of BLEA significantly improved neurological deficits assessed by the National Institute of Stroke Scale (MD, -2.83; 95% CIs, -4.48 to -1.17), consciousness impairment measured by the Glasgow Coma Scale (MD, 2.75. 95% CIs, 1.72 to 3.78), and motor function assessed by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (MD, 5.31. 95% CIs, 3.04 to 7.58). It also significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD, -7.39; 95% CIs. -8.85 to -5.93).

CONCLUSION

BLEA may be a promising intervention that provides additional benefits to patients with acute stroke receiving standard western medical care. However, the supporting evidence comes from a few small studies with a high risk of bias and low reporting quality. Future studies with appropriate population sizes and more rigorous methodology are warranted.