Background High altitude illness (HAI) is a term used to describe a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to elevations above 2500 metres (˜ 8200 feet). Acute hypoxia, acute mountain sickness (AMS), high altitude cerebral oedema (HACE) and high altitude pulmonary oedema (HAPE) are reported as potential medical problems associated with high altitude. In this review, the first in a series of three about preventive strategies for HAI, we assess the e ectiveness of six of the most recommended classes of pharmacological interventions. Objectives To assess the clinical e ectiveness and adverse events of commonly-used pharmacological interventions for preventing acute HAI. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), LILACS and trial registries in January 2017. We adapted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. We used a combination of thesaurus-based and freetext terms to search. Selection criteria We included randomized-controlled and cross-over trials conducted in any setting where commonly-used classes of drugs were used to prevent acute HAI. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

Patients undergone to mixed bariatric surgery had significant higher BMD deterioration as demonstrated in this review, suggesting that more attention for preventing fractures is required.

The pocket ultrasound device (PUD) is a new tool that may be of use in the early detection of ascites. Abdominal ultrasound-guided paracentesis has been reported to decrease the rate of complications due to the procedure, but must be performed in a healthcare setting; this new tool may be a useful on an ambulatory basis. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic usefulness of the PUD in the diagnosis of ascites and the safety of guided paracentesis. We conducted a retrospective study that included adult patients suspected of having ascites and in whom an evaluation was performed with the PUD to identify it. Concordance with abdominal ultrasound (AUS) was determined with the Kappa coefficient. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and likelihood ratios (LR) were determined and compared with physical examination, AUS, computed tomography and procurement of fluid by paracentesis. Complications resulting from the guided paracentesis were analyzed. 89 participants were included and 40 underwent a paracentesis. The PUD for ascites detection had 95.8 % Se, 81.8 % Sp, 5.27 +LR and 0.05 -LR. It had a concordance with AUS of 0.781 (p < 0.001). Technical problems during the guided paracentesis were present in only two participants (5 %) and three patients (7.5 %) developed minor complications that required no further intervention. There were no severe complications or deaths. This study suggests that the PUD is a reliable tool for ascites detection as a complement to physical examination and appears to be a safe method to perform guided paracentesis.

Our results demonstrate a predominantly inflammatory response in XLA patients after LPS stimulation and suggest a deregulation of TLR signaling in the absence of Btk. This response may be influenced by environmental factors.

No abstract

BackgroundInfective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the di erences in presentation, populations a ected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. ObjectivesTo assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of di erent antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index -Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the e ects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.A comparison of di erent antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis (Review)

There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of nitrofurans or imidazolic drugs as recommended treatment in CCC and chronic T.cruzi infections, specifically if overt heart disease is present. A well designed randomized controlled trial is necessary to establish if new drugs are suitable for treatment of cardiac patients with CCC.

BackgroundInfective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the di erences in presentation, populations a ected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. ObjectivesTo assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of di erent antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index -Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the e ects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively.A comparison of di erent antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis (Review)