Background/Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. We investigated genomic determinants of clinical benefit from gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in advanced BTC. Methods: Clinical and genomic data using TruSight Oncology 500 were analyzed from patients treated with GAP (N=198) or GC (N=89) as first-line therapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 33.0 months, GAP modestly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.764; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591–0.989) without significant overall survival (OS) difference compared to GC. Genomic profiling revealed frequent alterations in TP53 (35.2%), KRAS (16.4%), SMAD4 (10.5%), and TNFRSF14 (10.5%), involving RTK/RAS (44.3%), TP53 (41.8%), and PI3K (20.2%) pathways. Single-gene mutations did not predict treatment benefit. However, pathway-level analysis identified PI3K pathway activation as significantly associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.148; 95% CI 1.478–3.124) and OS (HR 2.096; 95% CI 1.413–3.109) in patients receiving GAP, an effect not observed with GC. Importantly, GAP conferred clinical benefit only in patients without PI3K pathway activation, while no survival advantage was seen in those with such alterations (Pinteraction=0.023 for PFS, Pinteraction=0.003 for OS). Similar results were obtained in the independent validation cohort treated with GAP (N=103) or GC (N=64) for BTC. Conclusions Genomic profiling using next-generation sequencing identified PI3K pathway activation as key molecular determinant that differentiates patient outcomes between GAP and GC treatments in advanced BTC.

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a particularly challenging subtype of breast cancer, with a poorer prognosis compared to other subtypes. Unfortunately, unlike luminal-type cancers, there is no validated biomarker to predict the prognosis of patients with early-stage TNBC. Accurate biomarkers are needed to establish effective therapeutic strategies. Materials and Methods: In this study, we analyzed gene expression profiles of tumor samples from 184 TNBC patients (training cohort, n=76; validation cohort, n=108) using RNA sequencing. Results: By combining weighted gene expression, we identified a 10-gene signature (DGKH, GADD45B, KLF7, LYST, NR6A1, PYCARD, ROBO1, SLC22A20P, SLC24A3, and SLC45A4) that stratified patients by risk score with high sensitivity (92.31%), specificity (92.06%), and accuracy (92.11%) for invasive disease-free survival. The 10-gene signature was validated in a separate institution cohort and supported by meta-analysis for biological relevance to well-known driving pathways in TNBC. Furthermore, the 10-gene signature was the only independent factor for invasive disease-free survival in multivariate analysis when compared to other potential biomarkers of TNBC molecular subtypes and T-cell receptor β diversity. 10-gene signature also further categorized patients classified as molecular subtypes according to risk scores. Conclusion Our novel findings may help address the prognostic challenges in TNBC and the 10-gene signature could serve as a novel biomarker for risk-based patient care.

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.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for 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. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion 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.

Purpose: To develop a web-based solution for patient need-driven staffing (PNDS) that automatically determines nurses’ staffing requirements. Methods: Activities provided by nurses in four integrated nursing care wards (INCWs) and non-INCWs each in a tertiary hospital were observed over three days. Nursing hours per patient hour (NHPPH) were calculated by dividing nursing hours by patient stay hours per day. Patient needs were evaluated using 19 items. Results: The nurse-patient ratios in INCWs and non-INCWs were 1:4.5 and 1:8.1 (including overtime), respectively. Admitted and transferred-in patients had higher NHPPHs than those with continuing stays. The patients were classified into five groups: Group A for admissions and transfers-in, and Groups 1~4 for the remainder. In INCWs, the nurse-patient ratios ranged from 1:5.3 (Group 1) to 1:2.4 (Group 4), and Group A required 1:3.0, the secondhighest level. In non-INCWs, ratios ranged from 1:9.4 (Group 1) to 1:5.2 (Group 4 and Group A). The PNDS solution was developed to determine staffing requirements by classifying patients into five groups using the entered data on patient needs, assigning the group’s NHPPH to each patient, and calculating the staffing ratio required in the unit. Conclusion The PNDS is expected to support staffing decisions to meet patient needs.

Objective: This study evaluated the anxiety, work, and socioeconomic burden of emergency physicians (EP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in South Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using data from the 2020 Korean Emergency Physician Survey that included the following domains: hospital resources of suspected COVID-19 patients, availability of personal protective equipment, levels of home and workplace anxiety, the severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in personal environments, and measures to decrease stress/anxiety. Results: Totally, 855 eligible participants were enrolled in the study. A statistically significant deterioration was observed in response to decreased working income or an unstable employment situation (0.46±0.88 points). The median number of patients with confirmed COVID-19 was 2.72. The risk of infection during emergency department (ED) work was found to be significantly increased (P<0.01). Of the 751 respondents (91.4%) who reported patient contact during their survey phase, 516 (62.8%) reported having taken the COVID-19 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test. The major factors that affected worsening of the work burden were determined to be unsuitable inter-hospital transfer arrangements for febrile patients (3.46±1.06 before vs. 1.99±1.16 after the pandemic, P<0.01) and delayed consultation for patients with fever or respiratory symptoms in the ED (3.20±1.06 before vs. 2.66±1.10 after the pandemic, P<0.01). Conclusion During the peak phase, the COVID-19 pandemic induced substantial workplace and socioeconomic burdens for Korean EPs. The sustained impact of the pandemic on the wellness of EPs deserves further investigation to guide targeted interventions.

Objective: Data pertaining to the prognostic value of the combination of high neutrophilto-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and anemia on admission in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical value of baseline NLR in combination with anemia in predicting clinical outcomes after STEMI. Methods: A total of 5,194 consecutive patients with STEMI within 12 hours of symptom onset from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database between 2011 and 2015 were categorized into 4 groups according to their NLR and hemoglobin levels: low NLR (<4) without anemia (n=2,722; reference group); high NLR (≥4) without anemia (n=1,527); low NLR with anemia (n=508); and high NLR with anemia (n=437). The co-primary outcomes were 180-day and 3-year all-cause mortality. Results: Mortality rates significantly increased at the 3-year follow-up across the groups (3.3% vs. 5.4% vs. 16.5% vs. 21.7% for 180-day mortality and 5.3% vs. 9.0% vs. 23.8% vs. 33.4% for 3-year mortality; all p-trends <0.001). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the combination of high NLR and anemia was a significant predictor of 180-day mortality after STEMI with low NLR and no anemia as the reference (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.58–2.95; p<0.001). Similar findings were observed for the 3-year mortality. Conclusions This nationwide prospective cohort study showed that the combination of high NLR (≥4) and anemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality after STEMI.