Purpose: Radiotherapy is used to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence after surgery, but it is a potential cause of secondary cancer. We validated the risk of secondary cancer in primary breast cancer who received radiotherapy compared with those who did not from a matched cohort using a large-scale observational study of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) data network. Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study using propensity score-matched cohorts was performed using two Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model databases, from tertiary general hospitals in South Korea. Among female patients who underwent surgery after the diagnosis of breast cancer, the risk of secondary primary malignant occurrence after 1:1 matching was analyzed. Results: Among 27,078 patients with breast cancer, there was no significant difference in the risk of secondary cancer following radiotherapy in 4,426 patients after 1:1 propensity-score matching. Further, there were no significant differences in the sensitivity analysis according to age, latency period, and number of radiation treatments. Conclusion There was no difference in the risk of secondary cancer in the patients diagnosed with breast cancer depending on whether or not radiotherapy was performed after surgery. In the future, it is necessary to analyze including data generated during cancer treatment.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Vertebral arteriovenous fistula (VAVF) is a rare lesion characterized by an abnormal connection between the extracranial vertebral artery and the surrounding venous plexus. It typically arises due to penetrating injury, although it can occasionally result from blunt trauma. Brachial plexus injury (BPI) is also infrequently associated with VAVF. We present a rare case of VAVF caused by blunt trauma, which resulted in BPI. The patient, who had previously sustained a C2 fracture and C2–3 myelopathy from a bicycle accident, presented with new-onset weakness in the right upper extremity. His previous clinical history led to an initial suspicion of either an exacerbation of a pre-existing lesion or a shoulder injury. However, electromyography indicated that the weakness was due to BPI. Further evaluations later revealed VAVF to be the primary cause of the BPI. VAVF must be recognized as a rare potential reason for BPI, as timely intervention is essential for improving patient recovery and prognosis.

Background: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding poses a global challenge, particularly for critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Although delays in ICU transfer increase mortality in critically ill populations, the optimal timing for septic shock remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a target trial emulation using a prospective cohort of 815 septic shock patients from 19 Korean hospitals. Delayed ICU transfer was defined using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability treatment weighting were used to adjust for confounders of age, sex, comorbidities, severity of illness, and mechanical ventilation use. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the effect across patient characteristics. Results: The median time of ED-to-ICU transfer was 6.7 hours (interquartile range, 4.7–11.4), and only 7% of patients were transferred within 3 hours. ICU transfer within 3 hours was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24–0.94) compared to later transfers. Mortality risk increased with elapsing time up to 6 hours and then plateaued. The benefit of early ICU transfer was consistent across subgroups but was particularly pronounced in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or continuous renal replacement therapy (P for interaction=0.02). Conclusions Early ICU transfer within 3 hours significantly reduces mortality in patients with septic shock, with the greatest benefit observed in those requiring advanced organ support. These findings highlight the need for system-wide strategies to reduce ED boarding time and prioritize timely ICU admission for septic shock management.

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.

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.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

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.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

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.