Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background: Current international guidelines recommend against deep sedation as it is associated with worse outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in Korea the prevalence of deep sedation and its impact on patients in the ICU are not well known. Methods: From April 2020 to July 2021, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, noninterventional cohort study was performed in 20 Korean ICUs. Sedation depth extent was divided into light and deep using a mean Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale value within the first 48 hours. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariables; the outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall, 631 patients (418 [66.2%] and 213 [33.8%] in the deep and light sedation groups, respectively) were included. Mortality rates were 14.1% and 8.4% in the deep and light sedation groups (P = 0.039), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that time to extubation (P < 0.001), ICU length of stay (P = 0.005), and death P = 0.041) differed between the groups. After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation was only associated with delayed time to extubation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence inter val [CI], 0.55– 0.80; P < 0.001). In the matched cohort, deep sedation remained significantly associated with delayed time to extubation (HR, 0.68; 95% 0.56–0.83; P < 0.001) but was not associated with ICU length of stay (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79–1.13; P = 0.500) and in-hospital mortality (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.65–2.17; P = 0.582). Conclusion In many Korean ICUs, early deep sedation was highly prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and was associated with delayed extubation, but not prolonged ICU stay or in-hospital death.

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the changing trends in intentional drug poisoning among pediatric and adolescent patients over the past 10 years. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients younger than 20 years who visited an academic hospital emergency department (ED) in Incheon, Korea, from January 2011 through December 2020. The study focused on patients who responded with “self-harm or suicide” in the ED-based Injury In-depth Surveillance, and whose injury mechanism was drug poisoning. Exclusion criteria were unintentional injuries and the ingestion of substances other than drugs. To describe the trend over the decade, we used the number of events/100,000 ED annual visits of the database. Results: A total of 3,388 cases with a median age of 17 years (interquartile range, 15-18 years) were included. The most frequently ingested drugs were acetaminophen (27.8%), followed by benzodiazepines (15.2%), antidepressants (14.1%), other sedatives and hypnotics (13.4%), and antipsychotics (8.3%). As for the events/100,000 ED annual visits, benzodiazepines showed the biggest increase, from 7.6 to 80.2 cases. Similarly, antidepressants increased from 10.2 to 71.1 cases, and antipsychotics from 3.6 to 53.7 cases. Conclusion Intentional drug poisoning has increased over the past 10 years, particularly in benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and antipsychotics. It is advisable to establish injury prevention strategies according to patients’ characteristics and ingested drugs.

Background: and Purpose Screening tests for dementia such as the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment are widely used, but there are drawbacks to their efficient use. There remains a need for a brief and easy method of assessing the activities of daily living (ADL) that can be administered to elderly individuals by healthcare workers. We have therefore developed a new scale named the Simple Observation Checklist for Activities of Daily Living (SOC-ADL). Methods: We developed the SOC-ADL scale as a team of experts engaged in caring for individuals with dementia. This scale comprises eight items and was designed based on the Korean instrumental activities of daily living (K-IADL) scale and the Barthel activities of daily living scale (Barthel Index). The new scale was validated by enrolling 176 patients with cognitive dysfunction across 6 centers. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed. We assessed its concurrent validity by performing comparisons with the Korean-MMSE, Clinical Dementia Rating, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, K-IADL, and Barthel Index, and its criterion validity by performing comparisons between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. We also used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the interitem reliability. The appropriate cutoff values were determined by analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves, including the areas underneath them. Results: EFA extracted one factor and CFA revealed that all of the model fits exceeded the minimum acceptable criteria. The SOC-ADL scores were strongly correlated with those of the other tools for dementia and could be used to differentiate MCI from dementia. Cronbach’s alpha values indicated that the results were reliable. The optimal cutoff value of the SOC-ADL for discriminating dementia from MCI was 3 points, which provided a sensitivity and specificity of 74.5% and 75.7%, respectively. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the SOC-ADL is a valid and reliable tool for differentiating dementia from MCI based on an assessment of ADL. This new tool can be used for screening ADL in elderly subjects who have difficulty communicating, and to increase the efficiency of dementia screening at the population level.

Objective: No studies have evaluated the diagnostic value of ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) for the early detection of sepsis/septic shock in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). We aimed to assess the usefulness of IMA in diagnosing sepsis/septic shock in the ED. Methods: This retrospective, observational study analyzed IMA, lactate, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin levels measured within 1 hour of ED arrival. Patients with suspected infection meeting at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were included and classified into the infection, sepsis, and septic shock groups using Sepsis-3 definitions. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine diagnostic performance. Results: This study included 300 adult patients. The AUC (95% CI) of IMA levels (cut-off ≥85.5 U/mL vs. ≥87.5 U/mL) was higher for the diagnosis of sepsis than for that of septic shock (0.729 [0.667–0.791] vs. 0.681 [0.613–0.824]) and was higher than the AUC of procalcitonin levels (cut-off ≥1.58 ng/mL, 0.678 [0.613–0.742]) for the diagnosis of sepsis. When IMA and lactate levels were combined, the AUCs were 0.815 (0.762–0.867) and 0.806 (0.754–0.858) for the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock, respectively. IMA levels independently predicted sepsis (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.029) and septic shock (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.11; P=0.002). Conclusion Our findings indicate that IMA levels are a useful biomarker for diagnosing sepsis/ septic shock early, and their combination with lactate levels can enhance the predictive power for early diagnosis of sepsis/septic shock in the ED.

Objective: Doctors or public health doctors at the nearest institution to a disaster scene often have to treat the casualties at the scene. Therefore, disaster medical education is necessary for medical students and doctors, but such education is not properly implemented. This study investigated the status of disaster medical education in Korean medical schools and the professors' thoughts on the appropriateness and necessity of disaster medical education. Methods: A survey was conducted on working-level professors in charge of student education in emergency medicine in 40 medical schools. The survey asked the professors the current status of disaster medical education at each school and the professors' thoughts on the appropriateness and necessity of disaster medical education. Results: Thirty-seven professors (92.5%) responded to the survey. Twenty-seven schools (73.0%) had a regular curriculum of disaster medicine. Disaster drills were conducted at 34 training hospitals (91.9%), while students of 10 schools (29.4%) were officially participating in the drill. Of the responders, 31 (83.8%) responded that disaster medicine is necessary for clinicians. Thirty-seven professors (100%) thought disaster medical education was necessary for medical students, and 20 (54.1%) of them responded that their schools did not provide adequate disaster medical education. Conclusion Many schools did not have a proper course on disaster medical education. Disaster medical education is necessary for medical students, but such education is not properly implemented.

Objective: Doctors or public health doctors at the nearest institution to a disaster scene often have to treat the casualties at the scene. Therefore, disaster medical education is necessary for medical students and doctors, but such education is not properly implemented. This study investigated the status of disaster medical education in Korean medical schools and the professors' thoughts on the appropriateness and necessity of disaster medical education. Methods: A survey was conducted on working-level professors in charge of student education in emergency medicine in 40 medical schools. The survey asked the professors the current status of disaster medical education at each school and the professors' thoughts on the appropriateness and necessity of disaster medical education. Results: Thirty-seven professors (92.5%) responded to the survey. Twenty-seven schools (73.0%) had a regular curriculum of disaster medicine. Disaster drills were conducted at 34 training hospitals (91.9%), while students of 10 schools (29.4%) were officially participating in the drill. Of the responders, 31 (83.8%) responded that disaster medicine is necessary for clinicians. Thirty-seven professors (100%) thought disaster medical education was necessary for medical students, and 20 (54.1%) of them responded that their schools did not provide adequate disaster medical education. Conclusion Many schools did not have a proper course on disaster medical education. Disaster medical education is necessary for medical students, but such education is not properly implemented.