Early Improvement of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been over 2 million deaths globally. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may be the main cause of death. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the clinical features, outcomes, and ARDS characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Chongqing, China. METHODS: The epidemiology of COVID-19 from January 21, 2020, to March 15, 2020, in Chongqing, China, was analyzed retrospectively, and 75 ICU patients from two hospitals were included in this study. On day 1, 56 patients with ARDS were selected for subgroup analysis, and a modified Poisson regression was performed to identify predictors for the early improvement of ARDS (eiARDS). RESULTS: Chongqing reported a 5.3% case fatality rate for the 75 ICU patients. The median age of these patients was 57 (IQR 25-75) years, and no bias was present in the sex ratio. A total of 93% (n=70) of patients developed ARDS during ICU stay, and more than half had moderate ARDS. However, most patients (n=41, 55%) underwent high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, but not mechanical ventilation. Nearly one-third of patients with ARDS improved (arterial blood oxygen partial pressure/oxygen concentration >300 mm Hg) in 1 week, which was defined as eiARDS. Patients with eiARDS had a higher survival rate and a shorter length of ICU stay than those without eiARDS. Age (<55 years) was the only variable independently associated with eiARDS, with a risk ratio of 2.67 (95% CI 1.17-6.08). CONCLUSIONS: A new subphenotype of ARDS-eiARDS-in patients with COVID-19 was identified. As clinical outcomes differ, the stratified management of patients based on eiARDS or age is highly recommended.

Behaviour in public open spaces: A systematic review of studies with quantitative research methods

Public open spaces are important assets that play a significant role in city lives, based on which a great number of behaviour-based studies are being conducted. These studies often use one or more case studies to observe people's preferences and usage habits and to investigate their influencing factors such as outdoor thermal comfort, environmental conditions, urban configuration, and local settings. Because the subject is complex and falls within the purview of multiple academic disciplines, it is a challenging task to understand the current status and development trends of existing studies. To fill this gap, this article presents a systematic review of quantitative evidence-based behaviour studies in public open spaces. Following the PRISMA method and searching using eight academic search engines, full texts of 116 research articles have been included for this review. The main contributions of this review are that: (1) it proposed a relatively complete system that categorizes people's behaviour in public open spaces;(2) it introduced outdoor subjective influencing procedure including behaviour, feeling and health impacts;(3) the review illustrated the distribution of existing research as well as research trends;and finally (4) the article also timely discussed the influence of the COVID-19 on people's behaviour in public open spaces. The authors consider this article to be useful as it can facilitate further behaviour-based studies in public open spaces. With a robust classification and future trend discussion of factors associated, fellow researchers, urban designers, city managers, and policymakers are easier to integrate and use the knowledge learned.

A Systematic Review of Objective Factors Influencing Behavior in Public Open Spaces.

As a significant part of outdoor built-environment, public open spaces are closely associated with people's daily lives. Studies of outdoor behavior in these spaces can shed light on users' environmental perceptions and contribute to the promotion of physiological and psychological health. Many recent studies are case studies focused where observations, surveys and interviews have been conducted to understand the factors influencing people's behavior on one or few sites or city environments. There have been few reviews related to this topic, and none have been based on the systematic understanding of influencing factors. This paper presents a systematic review of interactions between behavior and the built environment in public open spaces, and highlights the impacts of diverse and objective influencing factors. Followed the rules of PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), 109 papers published in 2000-2021 were selected and reviewed. The distribution of the studied interactions is analyzed, and the impacts of four distinct factors: personal background, location and context, environmental component, and climate stimuli, are extracted, categorized, and specified. Moreover, outdoor health benefits are discussed based on which, crucial factors that require emphasis after the outbreak of COVID-19 are identified. Throughout this paper, behavioral influencing processes, including objective influencing factors, subjective feedback, and the relationships involved, are considered to provide a comprehensive picture. With the robust classification of existing factors, architects, urban designers, policy makers and fellow researches could be easier to get a more comprehensive trend from the past. This paper also provides guidance for future research, especially given that COVID-19 has created huge changes to outdoor needs and customary behavior. Systematic Review Registration: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.

Effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in patients with severe COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains inconclusive. AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the difference in several outcomes between patients with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroid therapy (the corticosteroid group) and patients with severe COVID-19 who did not receive corticosteroid therapy (the non-corticosteroid group). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in this study. Of these, 47 patients were in the corticosteroid group and 28 patients were in the non-corticosteroid group. There were no differences between the two groups in the total length of hospital stay, the length of intensive care unit stay, high-flow oxygen days, non-invasive ventilator days, invasive ventilation days, and mortality rate. Total lesion volume ratio, consolidation volume ratio and ground-glass opacity volume ratio in the corticosteroid group decreased significantly on day 14, while those in the non-corticosteroid group did not show a significant decrease. CONCLUSION: Our results show that adjunctive corticosteroid use did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients, but might promote the absorption of pulmonary lesions. Larger multicenter randomized controlled studies may be needed to confirm this.