Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has garnered significant attention as a therapeutic modality with potential benefits across a variety of medical conditions, ranging from wound healing and ischemic conditions to neurologic disorders and radiation-induced tissue damage. HBOT involves the administration of 100% oxygen at higher-than-atmospheric pressures, which increases the amount of oxygen dissolved in body fluids and tissues. Those elevated oxygen levels are proposed to facilitate tissue repair, reduce inflammation, and promote angiogenesis. This case report presents a compelling instance of the usefulness of HBOT in promoting skin perfusion and healing following peripheral tissue injury caused by administration of inotropic and vasopressor agents to a septic shock patient.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has garnered significant attention as a therapeutic modality with potential benefits across a variety of medical conditions, ranging from wound healing and ischemic conditions to neurologic disorders and radiation-induced tissue damage. HBOT involves the administration of 100% oxygen at higher-than-atmospheric pressures, which increases the amount of oxygen dissolved in body fluids and tissues. Those elevated oxygen levels are proposed to facilitate tissue repair, reduce inflammation, and promote angiogenesis. This case report presents a compelling instance of the usefulness of HBOT in promoting skin perfusion and healing following peripheral tissue injury caused by administration of inotropic and vasopressor agents to a septic shock patient.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has garnered significant attention as a therapeutic modality with potential benefits across a variety of medical conditions, ranging from wound healing and ischemic conditions to neurologic disorders and radiation-induced tissue damage. HBOT involves the administration of 100% oxygen at higher-than-atmospheric pressures, which increases the amount of oxygen dissolved in body fluids and tissues. Those elevated oxygen levels are proposed to facilitate tissue repair, reduce inflammation, and promote angiogenesis. This case report presents a compelling instance of the usefulness of HBOT in promoting skin perfusion and healing following peripheral tissue injury caused by administration of inotropic and vasopressor agents to a septic shock patient.

Background: This study investigates the long-term efficacy and safety of evogliptin add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously received dapagliflozin and metformin (DAPA/MET) combination. Methods: In this multicenter randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0% to 10.5% (n=283) previously used DAPA 10 mg plus MET (≥1,000 mg) were randomly assigned to the evogliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo group (1:1). The primary endpoint was the difference in the HbA1c level from baseline at week 24, and exploratory endpoints included the efficacy and safety of evogliptin over 52 weeks (trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04170998). Results: Evogliptin add-on to DAPA/MET therapy was superior in HbA1c reduction compared to placebo at weeks 24 and 52 (least square [LS] mean difference, –0.65% and –0.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.79 to –0.51 and –0.71 to –0.39; P<0.0001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% was higher in the triple combination group at week 52 (32.14% vs. 8.51% in placebo; odds ratio, 5.62; P<0.0001). Evogliptin significantly reduced the fasting glucose levels and mean daily glucose levels with improvement in homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (LS mean difference, 9.04; 95% CI, 1.86 to 16.21; P=0.0138). Adverse events were similar between the groups, and no serious adverse drug reactions were reported in the evogliptin group. Conclusion Long-term triple combination with evogliptin added to DAPA/MET showed superior HbA1c reduction and glycemic control compared to placebo at 52 weeks and was well tolerated.

Objective: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) have been reported as predictive markers of coronary artery calcium (CAC). However, previous studies demonstrated that the cardiovascular risk associations with Lp(a) are attenuated in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≤135 mg/dL. However, few articles have identified the risk factors of CAC in patients without high LDL-C. Therefore, we performed this study to investigate the association of Lp(a) and AIP with CAC in patients with LDL-C levels ≤135 mg/dL. Methods: This study included 625 lipid-lowering agent naive patients with LDL-C levels ≤135 mg/dL who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the risk factors for a coronary artery calcium score (CACS) >0, CACS ≥400, and CAC ≥90th percentile. Results: The mean age of the patients was 55.0±7.9 years and their mean LDL-C level was 94.7 ±23.3 mg/dL. Multivariate regression analysis showed that age, male sex, diabetes, hypertension, Lp(a), and AIP were independent predictors of CAS>0. Age, male sex, and diabetes were independent predictors of CACS≥400. Diabetes, hypertension, and AIP were independent predictors of CAC ≥90th percentile (all p<0.05). Unlike Lp(a), higher AIP tertiles were associated with significantly higher CAC percentiles and greater proportions of patients with CACS ≥400 and CAC ≥90th percentile. Conclusion In patients without high LDL-C, AIP could be a more reliable predictor of CAC than Lp(a).

Objective: Early identification of COVID-19 in patients is important to prevent significant worsening of the disease. This study was undertaken to verify whether MEWS (Modified Early Warning Score), NEWS(National Early Warning Score), ROX index, and CURB-65, which are early diagnostic tools for severe respiratory diseases, could be applied to patients visiting the emergency room for COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients who visited an emergency medical center from September 1 to October 31, 2020, and from January 1 to February 28, 2021. Based on the vital signs and blood tests during the emergency room visit, severity evaluation tools and early diagnostic tools for severe cases were used and compared according to their area under the curve (AUC) values. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcomes were intensive care unit admission rate and the need for mechanical ventilation based on these four tools (MEWS, NEWS, ROX index, and CURB-65). Results: A total of 667 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was determined between the non-survivor group and survivor group in the MEWS values (P=0.13), but statistically significant differences were observed for NEWS (5 vs. 1, P<0.05), CURB-65 (2 vs. 1, P<0.05), and ROX index (16.61 vs. 23.1, P<0.01). The AUC value of NEWS for death prediction indicated a good predictive power at 0.80, while that of MEWS showed a low predictive power at 0.57, which was statistically significant. Moreover, the AUC values of CURB-65 and ROX index did not differ significantly from values obtained for NEWS. Conclusion As early diagnostic tools for predicting death in COVID-19 patients, NEWS, ROX index, and CURB-65 showed excellent discrimination ability, whereas MEWS showed statistically and significantly lower discrimination ability.

Objective: This study examined the characteristics of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with fever after the chronification of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed the medical records of patients who visited the ED with fever from May 1 to October 31, 2021, and the corresponding period in 2019. This study was conducted at a single center in Seoul, Korea. Results: There was no statistical difference in the comorbidities of the patients of the two groups: the AC (after the COVID-19 pandemic) group and the BC (before the COVID-19 pandemic) group. As for the level of consciousness at the time of ED arrival, there was a significantly larger decrease in consciousness (verbal response or less) in the AC group than in the BC group (P=0.002). In the case of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the proportion was higher in the AC group in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups (P=0.003). The median time from symptom onset to ED arrival was 15.7 hours in the BC group and 13.8 hours in the AC group, and there was no significant difference (P=0.137). When leaving the ED, the AC group had a higher admission rate to the ward and intensive care unit than the BC group. There was no statistical difference in the in-hospital mortality between the two groups (2.9% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.62). Conclusion Patients who visited the emergency room with fever after one year of the COVID-19 pandemic showed a similar time from symptom onset to ED arrival compared to patients who visited before the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality among these patients compared to those with fever before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: A suicide attempt by self-poisoning is a common cause of admissions to the emergency department (ED). Management of such intentiona poisoning often requires complicated medical procedures, resulting in a longer length of stay (LOS) as compared to other cases that require treatment in the ED. This study aimed to determine the factors affecting a longer LOS in self-poisoning patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study wherein all the medical charts of patients who visited the ED of one hospital, from August 2016 to July 2019, because of intentional self-poisoning, were reviewed. Results: Most of the patients visited the ED involuntarily and there were almost twice as many female patients as males. Almost half of the patients were referred to the psychiatry department. A comparison of various factors within the LOS groups revealed significant differences in mental status, guardian co-visitation, patient gender, psychiatric referral, and poisoning substance. Moreover, the LOS had a stronger association with the pre-consultation period than the consultation to decision-making period. Conclusion To reduce the LOS, it seems important to make a rapid decision on whether to observe the patient in the ED and wait until the workup is completed or to admit and then evaluate the patient in the ward. If the clinicians cannot obtain enough information to evaluate the patient for appropriate management, short-term admission may be an option to reduce the LOS and to provide a stable evaluation.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, is a global concern. This study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics, demographics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in the emergency department (ED) and explore clinical predictors of in-hospital mortality. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational study used 1,003 adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who went to the ED and were admitted to the hospital between February 28 and September 30, 2020. Results: The median age of the included patients was 55 (37-68) years, and 533 were women (53.1%). Severe COVID-19 was noted in 173 patients (17.2%); seven patients (0.7%) received mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate was 2.1%. Multivariable Cox regression analysis found the risk factors associated with in-hospital death of patients (age >70 years [hazard ratio (HR), 27.411; P<0.001], albumin level <3.5 g/dL [HR, 12.273; P<0.001], CURB-65 [confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure, 65 years of age and older] score ≥3 [HR, 10.137; P=0.002] and platelet count <100×109/L [HR, 3.281; P=0.024]) on admission. Conclusion Age>70 years, hypoalbuminemia, CURB-65≥3 and thrombocytopenia on admission were independent risk factors for mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Early detection of these predictors and application of CURB-65 score in the ED may provide guidance for appropriate risk stratification at triage and disposition of patients at increased risk of poor prognosis.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is currently ravaging the world and is a major threat to public health. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID-19. Hence, HCWs are also experiencing emotional and behavioral changes. The purpose of this study was to compare emotional changes and stress between occupations and to investigate the impact of emotions of HCWs during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: An anonymous, self-administered, previously validated questionnaire was given to HCWs at a hospital dedicated to infectious diseases in Korea during the COVID-19 outbreak. The participants were asked to evaluate stress factors, depressive moods, trauma, reasons for continuing to work, things that helped them work, coping strategies to reduce stress, motivators that could help them work during future outbreaks, and what they would like to do after the outbreak was over. Results: The total number of participants was 400. The average age of participants was 34.69±9.44. Stress and depressive moods showed variations in the job-to-job comparisons. Ethical duty and the professionalism of the HCWs pushed them to continue with their jobs. The news of a decline in the number of patients was helpful to HCWs. The implementation of personal hygiene programs helped in reducing stress. The provision of adequate personal protective equipment was a factor that would encourage them to work during any future outbreak. The participants wanted to go on a trip after the outbreak was over. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak had a significant emotional impact on HCWs. The concerns of HCWs may affect their work efficiency in an outbreak and should be addressed by incorporating appropriate management strategies while planning to combat an outbreak.