Background: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

Background: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

Background: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

Background: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

Background: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

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.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.