Although guidelines and protocols are available for central venous access, existing methods lack specificity and sensitivity, especially when placing peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated the feasibility of catheter detection in the right atrial cavity using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) during PICC placement. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent PICC placement between January 2022 and March 2023. TTE was performed to detect the arrival of the catheter in the right atrial cavity. Catheter misplacement was defined as an aberrant catheter position on chest x-ray (CXR). The primary endpoint was predicting catheter misplacement based on catheter detection in the right atrial cavity. The secondary endpoint was optimizing catheter placement and examining catheter-associated complications. Results: Of the 110 patients identified, 10 were excluded because of poor echogenicity and vein access failure. The remaining 100 patients underwent PICC placement with TTE. The catheter was visualized in the right atrial cavity in 90 patients. CXR exams revealed catheter misplacement in seven cases. Eight patients with catheter misplacement underwent the same procedure in the other arm. In two patients, PICC placement failed due to anatomical reasons. Catheter misplacement was detected using TTE with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 97% confidence interval (CI; 91.31%–99.36%), 90% CI (55.50%–99.75%), 99%, and 75%, respectively. Conclusions: TTE is a reliable tool for detecting catheter misplacement and optimizing catheter tip positioning during PICC placement.

Although guidelines and protocols are available for central venous access, existing methods lack specificity and sensitivity, especially when placing peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated the feasibility of catheter detection in the right atrial cavity using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) during PICC placement. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent PICC placement between January 2022 and March 2023. TTE was performed to detect the arrival of the catheter in the right atrial cavity. Catheter misplacement was defined as an aberrant catheter position on chest x-ray (CXR). The primary endpoint was predicting catheter misplacement based on catheter detection in the right atrial cavity. The secondary endpoint was optimizing catheter placement and examining catheter-associated complications. Results: Of the 110 patients identified, 10 were excluded because of poor echogenicity and vein access failure. The remaining 100 patients underwent PICC placement with TTE. The catheter was visualized in the right atrial cavity in 90 patients. CXR exams revealed catheter misplacement in seven cases. Eight patients with catheter misplacement underwent the same procedure in the other arm. In two patients, PICC placement failed due to anatomical reasons. Catheter misplacement was detected using TTE with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 97% confidence interval (CI; 91.31%–99.36%), 90% CI (55.50%–99.75%), 99%, and 75%, respectively. Conclusions: TTE is a reliable tool for detecting catheter misplacement and optimizing catheter tip positioning during PICC placement.

Although guidelines and protocols are available for central venous access, existing methods lack specificity and sensitivity, especially when placing peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated the feasibility of catheter detection in the right atrial cavity using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) during PICC placement. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent PICC placement between January 2022 and March 2023. TTE was performed to detect the arrival of the catheter in the right atrial cavity. Catheter misplacement was defined as an aberrant catheter position on chest x-ray (CXR). The primary endpoint was predicting catheter misplacement based on catheter detection in the right atrial cavity. The secondary endpoint was optimizing catheter placement and examining catheter-associated complications. Results: Of the 110 patients identified, 10 were excluded because of poor echogenicity and vein access failure. The remaining 100 patients underwent PICC placement with TTE. The catheter was visualized in the right atrial cavity in 90 patients. CXR exams revealed catheter misplacement in seven cases. Eight patients with catheter misplacement underwent the same procedure in the other arm. In two patients, PICC placement failed due to anatomical reasons. Catheter misplacement was detected using TTE with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 97% confidence interval (CI; 91.31%–99.36%), 90% CI (55.50%–99.75%), 99%, and 75%, respectively. Conclusions: TTE is a reliable tool for detecting catheter misplacement and optimizing catheter tip positioning during PICC placement.

Although guidelines and protocols are available for central venous access, existing methods lack specificity and sensitivity, especially when placing peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). We evaluated the feasibility of catheter detection in the right atrial cavity using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) during PICC placement. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent PICC placement between January 2022 and March 2023. TTE was performed to detect the arrival of the catheter in the right atrial cavity. Catheter misplacement was defined as an aberrant catheter position on chest x-ray (CXR). The primary endpoint was predicting catheter misplacement based on catheter detection in the right atrial cavity. The secondary endpoint was optimizing catheter placement and examining catheter-associated complications. Results: Of the 110 patients identified, 10 were excluded because of poor echogenicity and vein access failure. The remaining 100 patients underwent PICC placement with TTE. The catheter was visualized in the right atrial cavity in 90 patients. CXR exams revealed catheter misplacement in seven cases. Eight patients with catheter misplacement underwent the same procedure in the other arm. In two patients, PICC placement failed due to anatomical reasons. Catheter misplacement was detected using TTE with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 97% confidence interval (CI; 91.31%–99.36%), 90% CI (55.50%–99.75%), 99%, and 75%, respectively. Conclusions: TTE is a reliable tool for detecting catheter misplacement and optimizing catheter tip positioning during PICC placement.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is effective in preventing the disease transmission and progression. However, the relatively mild disease course of the omicron variant and the decrease in antibodies over time after vaccination raise questions about the effectiveness of vaccination, especially in young people. We compared the prevalence of pneumonia and chest X-ray severity score according to vaccination status among patients < 50 years old with COVID-19. Methods: From January 17 to March 17, 2022, 579 patients with COVID-19, who were < 50 years old and had a known vaccination history in our institution, were all included in this study. All patients underwent initial chest radiography, and follow-up chest radiographs were obtained every two days until discharge. Pneumonia was scored from the radiographs using the Brixia scoring system. The scores of the six lung zones were added for a total score ranging from 0 to 18. Patients were divided into four groups according to 10-year age intervals. Differences between groups were analyzed using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and the Kruskal–Wallis test or analysis of variance for continuous variables. Results: Among patients aged 12–19 years, the prevalence of pneumonia did not differ depending on vaccination status (non-vaccinated vs. vaccinated, 1/47 [2.1%] vs. 1/18 [5.6%]; P = 0.577).Among patients in their 20s, the prevalence of pneumonia was significantly higher among nonvaccinated patients than among vaccinated patients (8/28, 28.6% vs. 7/138, 5.1%, P < 0.001), similar to patients in their 40s (32/52 [61.5%] vs. 18/138 [13.0%]; P < 0.001). The chest X-ray severity score was also significantly higher in non-vaccinated patients than that in vaccinated patients in their 20s to their 40s (P < 0.001), but not among patients aged 12–19 years (P = 0.678). Conclusion In patients aged 20–49 years, vaccinated patients had a significantly lower prevalence of pneumonia and chest X-ray severity score than non-vaccinated patients.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was established in November 2021 to address the growing need for independent, in-depth scientific evidence on adverse events (AEs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. This initiative was requested by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and led by the National Academy of Medicine of Korea. In September 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center was established, strengthening CoVaSC’s initiatives. The center has conducted various studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. During CoVaSC’s second research year, from September 29, 2022 to July 19, 2023, the center was restructured into 4 departments: Epidemiological Research, Clinical Research, Communication & Education, and International Cooperation & Policy Research. Its main activities include (1) managing CoVaSC and the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center, (2) surveying domestic and international trends in AE causality investigation, (3) assessing AEs following COVID-19 vaccination, (4) fostering international collaboration and policy research, and (5) organizing regular fora and training sessions for the public and clinicians. Causality assessments have been conducted for 27 diseases, and independent research has been conducted after organizing ad hoc committees comprising both epidemiologists and clinical experts on each AE of interest. The research process included protocol development, data analysis, interpretation of results, and causality assessment. These research outcomes have been shared transparently with the public and healthcare experts through various fora. The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center plans to continue strengthening and expanding its research activities to provide reliable, high-quality safety information to the public.

Objectives: The present paper aimed to examine whether an aging workforce is associated with an increase in work-related fatal injuries and to explore the underlying reasons for this potential increase.Material and methodsAged workers were defined as those who were at least 55 years old. Work-related fatalities were assessed in aged and young workers who were registered with the workers' compensation system in 2021 in the Republic of Korea. Total waged workers, based on raw data from the Local Area Labor Force Survey in 2021, were used as the denominator to estimate the work-related fatality rates. Results: Most work-related fatalities in the aged workers occurred among individuals working in the “construction sector” (58.9%), those with “elementary occupations (unskilled workers)” (46.1%), and those with the employment status of “daily worker” (60.8%). The estimated incidence (0.973/10,000) of work-related fatalities among aged workers was about four times higher than that (0.239/10,000) among younger workers. “Falling,” “collision,” “struck by an object,” and “trip and slip” were more frequent types of work-related fatalities among aged workers relative to young workers. The category of “buildings, structures, and surfaces” was a more frequent cause of work-related fatalities among aged workers than among young workers. Conclusions Aged workers had a higher incidence of work-related fatalities than young workers. Frequent engagement in precarious employment and jobs, coupled with the greater physical vulnerability of aged workers, were likely causes of their higher level of work-related fatal injuries.

Background: While inhalation therapy efficacy hinges on attaining proper peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unstudied in Korea. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR, its correlation with COPD assessment test (CAT) scores, and factors associated with suboptimal PIFR. Methods: We enrolled 108 patients with COPD who had been using the same inhaler for at least 1 year without exacerbations. PIFR was measured using an inspiratory flow meter (In-Check DIAL G16). Demographic, clinical, pulmonary function, and CAT score data were collected. Inappropriate was defined as PIFR <60 L/min for dry power inhaler (DPI) users, and >90 L/min for aerosol device users. Results: The cohort comprised 87 (80.6%) men, mean age 71.0±8.5 years, with mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 69.1%±1.8% predicted. Twenty-nine (26.9%) used aerosol devices only, 76 (70.4%) used DPIs only, and three (2.8%) used both. Inappropriate PIFRs were found in 17.2% of aerosol device users, and 42.1% of DPI users. CAT scores were significantly higher in the inappropriate PIFR group than in the appropriate PIFR group (11.2±7.7 vs. 7.5±4.9, p=0.003). In DPI users, female, shorter height, lower body weight and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV) were associated with inappropriate PIFR. Conclusion The prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with COPD is 17.2% for aerosol device users, and 42.1% for DPI users. Suboptimal PIFR correlates with female gender, shorter stature, lower weight and MVV in DPI users.

With the introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) commissioned the National Academy of Medicine of Korea to gather experts to independently assess post-vaccination adverse events. Accordingly, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was launched in November 2021 to perform safety studies and establish evidence for policy guidance. The CoVaSC established 3 committees for epidemiology, clinical research, and communication. The CoVaSC mainly utilizes pseudonymized data linking KDCA’s COVID-19 vaccination data and the National Health Insurance Service’s claims data. The CoVaSC’s 5-step research process involves defining the target diseases and organizing ad-hoc committees, developing research protocols, performing analyses, assessing causal relationships, and announcing research findings and utilizing them to guide compensation policies. As of 2022, the CoVaSC completed this research process for 15 adverse events. The CoVaSC launched the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center in September 2022 and has been reorganized into 4 divisions to promote research including international collaborative studies, long-/short-term follow-up studies, and education programs. Through these enhancements, the CoVaSC will continue to swiftly provide scientific evidence for COVID-19 vaccine research and compensation and may serve as a model for preparing for future epidemics of new diseases.