Background: The design of intensive care units (ICUs) is increasingly acknowledged as a crucial factor affecting patient outcomes. Transitioning from multi-bed patient rooms (MPRs) to single-bed patient rooms (SPRs) aims to improve infection control, patient privacy, and quality of care. However, concerns remain regarding potential patient isolation and reduced staff situational awareness. This study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes in SPR-structured ICUs compared to mixed SPR and MPR ICUs. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted across three university-affiliated tertiary hospitals between April 2022 and August 2023. The study population included ICU patients aged ≥18 years, excluding those admitted to cardiac and neonatal ICUs. Outcomes assessed included ICU mortality and severity scores based on Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. Results: This study included 3,179 ICU patients across three sites: site A consisted exclusively of SPRs, while sites B and C had mixed SPR and MPR arrangements. ICU mortality rates were 8.3%, 15.2%, and 9.7% for sites A, B, and C, respectively (P<0.001). Propensity score matching and logistic regression analysis demonstrated that SPRs were associated with significantly reduced ICU mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40–0.73). Conclusions SPRs were associated with a protective effect, reducing ICU mortality. Clinical outcomes in ICUs appear to be influenced by structural design improvements alongside other clinical factors.

Background: Acute deterioration of patients in general wards often leads to major adverse events (MAEs), including unplanned intensive care unit transfers, cardiac arrest, or death. Traditional early warning scores (EWSs) have shown limited predictive accuracy, with frequent false positives. We conducted a prospective observational external validation study of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based EWS, the VitalCare - Major Adverse Event Score (VC-MAES), at a tertiary medical center in the Republic of Korea. Methods: Adult patients from general wards, including internal medicine (IM) and obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN)—the latter were rarely investigated in prior AI-based EWS studies—were included. The VC-MAES predictions were compared with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) predictions using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and logistic regression for baseline EWS values. False-positives per true positive (FPpTP) were assessed based on the power threshold. Results: Of 6,039 encounters, 217 (3.6%) had MAEs (IM: 9.5%, OBGYN: 0.26%). Six hours prior to MAEs, the VC-MAES achieved an AUROC of 0.918 and an AUPRC of 0.352, including the OBGYN subgroup (AUROC, 0.964; AUPRC, 0.388), outperforming the NEWS (0.797 and 0.124) and MEWS (0.722 and 0.079). The FPpTP was reduced by up to 71%. Baseline VC-MAES was strongly associated with MAEs (P<0.001). Conclusions The VC-MAES significantly outperformed traditional EWSs in predicting adverse events in general ward patients. The robust performance and lower FPpTP suggest that broader adoption of the VC-MAES may improve clinical efficiency and resource allocation in general wards.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has contributed to the change in the epidemiology of many infectious diseases. This study aimed to establish the pre-pandemic epidemiology of pediatric invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Methods: A retrospective multicenter-based surveillance for pediatric IBIs has been maintained from 1996 to 2020 in Korea. IBIs caused by eight bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella species) in immunocompetent children > 3 months of age were collected at 29 centers. The annual trend in the proportion of IBIs by each pathogen was analyzed. Results: A total of 2,195 episodes were identified during the 25-year period between 1996 and 2020. S. pneumoniae (42.4%), S. aureus (22.1%), and Salmonella species (21.0%) were common in children 3 to 59 months of age. In children ≥ 5 years of age, S. aureus (58.1%), followed by Salmonella species (14.8%) and S. pneumoniae (12.2%) were common. Excluding the year 2020, there was a trend toward a decrease in the relative proportions of S. pneumoniae (rs = −0.430, P = 0.036), H. influenzae (rs = −0.922, P < 0.001), while trend toward an increase in the relative proportion of S. aureus (rs = 0.850, P < 0.001), S. agalactiae (rs = 0.615, P = 0.001), and S. pyogenes (rs = 0.554, P = 0.005). Conclusion In the proportion of IBIs over a 24-year period between 1996 and 2019, we observed a decreasing trend for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae and an increasing trend for S. aureus, S. agalactiae, and S. pyogenes in children > 3 months of age. These findings can be used as the baseline data to navigate the trend in the epidemiology of pediatric IBI in the post COVID-19 era.

Objective: Following the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the importance of addressing acute stress induced by psychological burdens of diseases became apparent. This study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of a new mode of psychiatric intervention designed to target similar psychological crises. Methods: Participants included 32 out of 114 COVID inpatients at a hospital in Daegu, Korea, who were assessed between March 30 and April 7, 2020. Multiple scales for screening psychological difficulties such as depressed mood, anxiety, insomnia, acute stress, and suicidality were done. Psychological problem evaluations and interventions were conducted in the form of consultations to alleviate participants’ psychological challenges via telepsychiatry. The interventions’ effects, as well as clinical improvements before and after the intervention, were analyzed. Results: As a result of screening, 21 patients were experiencing psychological difficulties beyond clinical thresholds after COVID-19 infection (screening positive group). The remaining 11 were screening negative groups. The two groups differed significantly in past psychiatric histories (p=0.034), with the former having a higher number of diagnoses. The effect of the intervention was analyzed, and clinical improvement before and after the intervention was observed. Our intervention was found to be effective in reducing the overall emotional difficulties. Conclusion This study highlighted the usefulness of new interventions required in the context of healthcare following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become the treatment of choice for the management of massive rotator cuff tears combined with cuff tear arthropathy, and many novel designs have been proposed to overcome the shortcomings of classic RTSA. This study sought to evaluate and compare RTSA outcomes among patients with cuff tear arthropathy treated by a medialized inlay humerus implant with a neck shaft angle of 155° or a lateralized onlay implant with a neck shaft angle of 145°. Methods: A retrospective review of 32 inlay implants and 32 onlay implants was performed. The active range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, motor power for elevation and external rotation, and functional scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and Korean Shoulder Scoring system were assessed before surgery, at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and at the last follow-up at least 24 months after surgery. Scapular notching, lateral humeral offset, and deltoid wrapping offset were assessed for radiographic evaluation. Results: The preoperative demographic data of both groups showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up period was 24.9 months. Significant improvements in forward flexion, functional scores, and pain VAS score were observed in both groups at the last follow-up. No significant differences in ROM or functional scores were found between two groups at each time point, except that the onlay implant group exhibited a significantly greater range of external rotation at 3 and 12 months after surgery and at the last follow-up. The rate of scapular notching and the final power improvement did not show significant differences between the groups. Conclusions Primary RTSA using inlay or onlay humerus implants was associated with recovery from pseudoparalysis and good clinical outcomes. However, RTSA with onlay humerus implantation led to clinically superior results in terms of external rotation.

Background: and Purpose Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin alone may provide a greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in patients with recent ischemic stroke. Methods: This randomized, open-label, controlled trial assigned patients with recent ischemic stroke <90 days to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg once daily (ROS10/EZT10) or to rosuvastatin 20 mg once daily (ROS20). The primary endpoint was LDL-C reduction ≥50% from baseline at 90 days. Key secondary endpoints were LDL-C <70 mg/dL and multiple lipid goal achievement, and composite of major vascular events. Results: Of 584 randomized, 530 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The baseline LDL-C level was 130.2±34.7 mg/dL in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 131.0±33.9 mg/dL in the ROS20 group. The primary endpoint was achieved in 198 patients (72.5%) in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 148 (57.6%) in the ROS20 group (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.944 [1.352–2.795]; P= 0.0003). LDL-C level <70 mg/dL was achieved in 80.2% and 65.4% in the ROS10/EZT10 and ROS20 groups (P=0.0001). Multiple lipid goal achievement rate was 71.1% and 53.7% in the ROS10/EZT10 and ROS20 groups (P<0.0001). Major vascular events occurred in 1 patient in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 9 in the ROS20 group (P=0.0091). The adverse event rates did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe was superior to high-intensity rosuvastatin alone for intensive LDL-C reduction in patients with recent ischemic stroke. With the combination therapy, more than 70% of patients achieved LDL-C reduction ≥50% and 80% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at 90 days.