ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xueshuantong combined with conventional western medicine for angina pectoris in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library (2013.12), Medline (2013.10), EMbase (unlimited-2013.10), China Nation Knowledge Infrastructure (unlimited-2013.10) and the Wanfang Database (unlimitied-2013.10), Weipu Database (unlimited-2013.10), and CBM (unlimited-2013.10) on computers for parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Xueshuantong and placebo for patients with angina pectoris. Three researchers selected the trials based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then extracted the data, assessed the quality of each trial independently. After cross checking, the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.1 software was used to perform Meta-analysis. ResultsThirteen RCTs and a total of 1 298 participants were involved. Meta-analysis showed that Xueshuantong combined with the conventional western medicine had better curative effect on angina pectoris for CHD than conventional therapy; stable angina pectoris [RR=1.24, 95%CI (1.12, 1.37), P<0.000 1]; unstable angina pectoris [RR=1.22, 95%CI (1.15, 1.29), P<0.000 01]. There was also significant difference in total curative effect between the two groups [RR=1.22, 95%CI (1.16, 1.29), P<0.000 01]. Xueshuantong also had better curative effect on improving performance of electrocardiogtram (ECG): stable angina pectoris [RR=1.30, 95%CI (1.11, 1.51), P=0.000 8]; unstable angina pectoris [RR=1.18, 95%CI (1.10, 1.28), P<0.000 1]. There was also significant difference in total curative effect on improving performance of ECG between the two groups [RR=1.21, 95%CI (1.13, 1.29), P<0.000 01]. But there was no significant difference in adverse effects rate between the two groups [RR=4.50, 95%CI (0.99, 20.53), P=0.05]. ConclusionCompared with conventional therapy, Xueshuantong combined with conventional western medicine has better curative effect with improved performance of ECG. The adverse effect rate between the two groups is not significantly different. But because of the small scale, inferior quality, and bias risk of these trials, large-scale, rational designed, multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm our conclusions.