Benefits and Harms of COVID-19 Vaccines in Cardiovascular Disease: A Comprehensive Review.

Patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) who contract coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tend to have a worse prognosis and more severe cardiovascular side effects. COVID-19 vaccines, which are intended to prevent COVID-19, may also potentially reduce the severity and complications (including cardiovascular sequelae) of COVID-19, especially in patients with a history of CVD. However, there have also been reports of cardiovascular side effects from COVID-19 vaccines of various brands and types. The purpose of this study is to review the benefits and harms of COVID-19 vaccines in relation to CVD. In this thorough review of the most current evidence on the benefits and harms of COVID-19 vaccines, we present information about the characteristics of cardiovascular complications. Most of the evidence focuses on myocarditis or pericarditis, which are most strongly associated with mRNA vaccines and predominantly occur in young males within days of receiving the second dose. Meanwhile, post-vaccination myocardial infarction is more common in older males, and the first dose of adenoviral vector vaccines appears to play a greater role in this complication. This information may guide us in formulating alternative options and implementing targeted surveillance. Gaining more knowledge about the potential benefits and harms of COVID-19 vaccines will improve our ability to make informed decisions and judgments about the balance of these factors.

Recommendations for ventilation of remodeled negative-pressure isolation wards for COVID-19 patients: A comparison of international guidelines.

This mini-review provides the practice guideline recommendations for ventilation of remodeled negative-pressure isolation wards for COVID-19 Patients. Remodeled "quasi-negative-pressure" isolation wards had been proved a feasible, inexpensive, safe, and effective measure to contain nosocomial outbreaks. We should first determine the minimum required ventilation volume of an isolation ward based on the severity of COVID-19 patients. Mechanical ventilation remains the mainstay for achieving the requirement, while the assistance of recirculation is also helpful. Beyond adequate ventilation volume, the "clean to less-clean" directional airflow remains the golden rule for the solution of indoor ventilation. The virus-laden exhaust should be treated with HEPA/UV device or be kept away from living organisms, buildings, and air inlets.

Efficiency and Quality of Data Collection Among Public Mental Health Surveys Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has recognized the importance of assessing population-level mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a timely surveillance method is urgently needed to track the impact on public mental health. OBJECTIVE: This brief systematic review focused on the efficiency and quality of data collection of studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using the following search strings: ((COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2)) AND ((Mental health) OR (psychological) OR (psychiatry)). We screened the titles, abstracts, and texts of the published papers to exclude irrelevant studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of each research paper. RESULTS: Our search yielded 37 relevant mental health surveys of the general public that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as of July 10, 2020. All these public mental health surveys were cross-sectional in design, and the journals efficiently made these articles available online in an average of 18.7 (range 1-64) days from the date they were received. The average duration of recruitment periods was 9.2 (range 2-35) days, and the average sample size was 5137 (range 100-56,679). However, 73% (27/37) of the selected studies had Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores of <3 points, which suggests that these studies are of very low quality for inclusion in a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The studies examined in this systematic review used an efficient data collection method, but there was a high risk of bias, in general, among the existing public mental health surveys. Therefore, following recommendations to avoid selection bias, or employing novel methodologies considering both a longitudinal design and high temporal resolution, would help provide a strong basis for the formation of national mental health policies.