Effects of iNOS in Hepatic Warm Ischaemia and Reperfusion Models in Mice and Rats: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Warm ischaemia is usually induced by the Pringle manoeuver (PM) during hepatectomy. Currently, there is no widely accepted standard protocol to minimise ischaemia-related injury, so reducing ischaemia-reperfusion damage is an active area of research. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as an early inflammatory response to hepatic ischaemia reperfusion injury (HIRI) in mouse- and rat-liver models. A systematic search of studies was performed within three databases. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. We performed a meta-analysis of studies grouped by different HIRI models and ischaemia times. Additionally, we investigated a possible correlation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and nitric oxide (NO) regulation with iNOS expression. Of 124 included studies, 49 were eligible for the meta-analysis, revealing that iNOS was upregulated in almost all HIRIs. We were able to show an increase of iNOS regardless of ischemia or reperfusion time. Additionally, we found no direct associations of eNOS or NO with iNOS. A sex gap of primarily male experimental animals used was observed, leading to a higher risk of outcomes not being translatable to humans of all sexes.

Effects of hypercapnia versus normocapnia during general anesthesia on outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of mild changes in CO2 levels to organ perfusion and tissue inflammation are well known, whereas an influence of hypercapnia under general anesthesia on adverse events as nausea and vomiting, or length of hospital stay is barely examined. The goal of our meta-analysis was to identify possibly positive effects of hypercapnia versus normocapnia in general anesthesia in adult patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of parallel-arm randomised controlled trials comparing hypercapnia versus normocapnia in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia. In July 2018 and September 2019 we searched "CENTRAL‿, "MEDLINE‿, and "Embase‿, checked reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional references to trials. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and completed a "Risk of bias‿ assessment for all included studies. RESULTS: Our search identified 297 records after abstract screening 30 full-text papers remained for further examination. Ten publications met our inclusion criteria and were used for narrative description of this systematic review. Three studies were eligible for the meta-analysis normocapnia versus hypercapnia with the outcomes: time to extubation and adverse events. On average, time to extubation was significantly reduced in the hypercapnia group with a mean difference 3.78 (95% CI 0.85 to 6.71). No difference was found regarding adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study do not enable us to produce evidence of a positive influence of increased CO2 partial pressure levels during general anesthesia. A well-planned, adequately powered randomized controlled trial would be desirable in the future.

Decision-Making Authority During Tele-ICU Care Reduces Mortality and Length of Stay-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic demonstrates the urgent need for the integration of tele-ICUs, there is still a lack of uniform regulations regarding the level of authority. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of the level of authority in tele-ICU care on patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception until August 30, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing standard care plus tele-ICU care with standard care alone in critically ill patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Mean differences and risk ratios were calculated using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 20 studies with 477,637 patients (ntele-ICU care = 292,319, ncontrol = 185,318) were included. Although "decision-making authority" as the level of authority was associated with a significant reduction in ICU mortality (pooled risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; p = 0.006), we found no advantage of tele-ICU care in studies with "expert tele-consultation" as the level of authority. With regard to length of stay, "decision-making authority" resulted in an advantage of tele-ICU care (ICU length of stay: pooled mean difference, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.10; p = 0.14; hospital length of stay: pooled mean difference, -1.54; 95% CI, -3.13 to 0.05; p = 0.06), whereas "expert tele-consultation" resulted in an advantage of standard care (ICU length of stay: pooled mean difference, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53; p = 0.005; hospital length of stay: pooled mean difference, 0.58; 95% CI, -0.04 to 1.21; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to expert tele-consultations, decision-making authority during tele-ICU care reduces mortality and length of stay in the ICU. This work confirms the urgent need for evidence-based ICU telemedicine guidelines and reveals potential benefits of uniform regulations regarding the level of authority when providing tele-ICU care.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Ivabradine for the Therapy of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the number one cause of death worldwide. The If channel inhibitor ivabradine serves as second line medication for the CAD leading symptom angina pectoris. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the existing evidence of ivabradine in angina pectoris. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science (September 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ivabradine versus placebo, standard therapy (ST) or other anti-anginal drugs. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and performed data extraction. We completed a 'risk of bias' assessment for all studies and assessed quality of the trial evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We meta-analysed data were applicable and calculated mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs (n=16,039) were included. Compared to placebo/ST, we found significant effects on the frequency of hospitalisation in a small cohort (n=90; hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04, -0.92; p=0.04), but no effects on cardiovascular mortality (n=19,102; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.28; p=0.25) or the frequency of angina pectoris episodes (n=167; weighted MD, -1.06; 95% CI, -2.74, -0.61; p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The present work makes an important contribution to optimal patient care in angina pectoris by complementing the current European Society of Cardiology guideline-recommending class IIa with evidence level B-decisively with 8 further studies.

Personalized medicine with IgGAM compared with standard of care for treatment of peritonitis after infectious source control (the PEPPER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is responsible for thousands of deaths annually in Germany alone. Even source control (SC) and antibiotic treatment often fail to prevent severe sepsis or septic shock, and this situation has hardly improved in the past two decades. Most experimental immunomodulatory therapeutics for sepsis have been aimed at blocking or dampening a specific pro-inflammatory immunological mediator. However, the patient collective is large and heterogeneous. There are therefore grounds for investigating the possibility of developing personalized therapies by classifying patients into groups according to biomarkers. This study aims to combine an assessment of the efficacy of treatment with a preparation of human immunoglobulins G, A, and M (IgGAM) with individual status of various biomarkers (immunoglobulin level, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, antigen D-related human leucocyte antigen (HLA-DR), transcription factor NF-κB1, adrenomedullin, and pathogen spectrum). METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 200 patients with sepsis or septic shock will receive standard-of-care treatment (SoC). Of these, 133 patients (selected by 1:2 randomization) will in addition receive infusions of IgGAM for 5 days. All patients will be followed for approximately 90 days and assessed by the multiple-organ failure (MOF) score, by the EQ QLQ 5D quality-of-life scale, and by measurement of vital signs, biomarkers (as above), and survival. DISCUSSION: This study is intended to provide further information on the efficacy and safety of treatment with IgGAM and to offer the possibility of correlating these with the biomarkers to be studied. Specifically, it will test (at a descriptive level) the hypothesis that patients receiving IgGAM who have higher inflammation status (IL-6) and poorer immune status (low HLA-DR, low immunoglobulin levels) have a better outcome than patients who do not receive IgGAM. It is expected to provide information that will help to close the knowledge gap concerning the association between the effect of IgGAM and the presence of various biomarkers, thus possibly opening the way to a personalized medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, 2016-001788-34; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03334006 . Registered on 17 Nov 2017. Trial sponsor: RWTH Aachen University, represented by the Center for Translational & Clinical Research Aachen (contact Dr. S. Isfort).