Aims Immunomodulation in heart failure (HF) has been studied in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with variable effects on cardiac structure, function, and outcomes. We sought to determine the effect of immunomodulation on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), and all-cause mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) through meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) of RCTs. Methods and results PubMed, Embase®, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically reviewed to identify RCTs that studied the effects of immunomodulation in patients with HFrEF. The primary endpoint in this analysis was change in LVEF. Secondary outcomes were changes in LVEDD and all-cause mortality. TSA was used to quantify the statistical reliability of data in the cumulative meta-analyses. Nineteen RCTs with 1341 HFrEF subjects were eligible for analyses. The aetiology of HF, specific immunomodulation strategy, and treatment duration were variable across trials. Immunomodulation led to a greater improvement in LVEF [mean difference: +5.7% 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-8.5%, P < 0.001] and reduction in LVEDD (mean difference: À3.7 mm, 95% CI: À7.0 to À0.4 mm, P = 0.028) than no immunomodulation in meta-analyses and TSAs. We observed a non-significant decrease in all-cause mortality among those on immumomodulation (risk ratio: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1.3, P = 0.234), but the Z-curve for cumulative treatment effect of immunomodulation in the TSA did not cross the boundary of futility. Conclusions Immunomodulation led to improved cardiac structure and function in patients with HFrEF. While these benefits did not translate into a significant improvement in mortality, our analysis suggests that larger studies of targeted immunomodulation are needed to understand the true benefits.

Background: Peptic ulcer perforation is one of the commonest causes of peritonitis and needs immediate surgical intervention after prompt resuscitation if mortality and morbidity are to be contained. Aims and objectives of the study was to compare role of Intra-abdominal drains prophylactically after plugging of these perforations single drain or no drain.Methods: In this study, we compared the relative safety and efficacy of putting single drain prophylactically near operation site or in natural abdominal fossae (hepato-renal pouch or sub hepatic) and no drain in cases of peritonitis due to peptic ulcer perforation. Study was done on 60 patients (one drain put in 30 patients Group A and no drain was put in other 30 patients of Group B). We handle the perforation after thorough peritoneal lavage with warm saline and metrogyl. All the perforation was closed by Grahm’s Patch.Results: No significant difference between drain and non-drain group as far age and sex concerned. Significant difference was seen in operative duration, hospital stay, wound dehiscence and post-operative fever, intraperitoneal collection or abscess formation. So use of drains are not effective in preventing post-operative infection rather there are chances of its blockage due to debris, intestine or omentum and tubes itself are source of infection as foreign body and there are chances of migration of bacteria from exterior to peritoneal cavity via these drains.Conclusions: Non drainage of peritoneal cavity after peptic ulcer perforation surgery is an effective method to reduce operative duration, hospital stay and wound dehiscence and post-operative pyrexia.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract