Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Background: Although there is general agreement on performing concomitant ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) during left-sided heart valve surgery in low-risk patients due to its proven long-term clinical benefits, its role in reoperative cases remains debated because of perceived high risks. Methods: This study included 338 consecutive patients with AF who underwent redo surgery for left-sided valve disease between 2000 and 2015 at 2 tertiary referral centers.Among them, 143 patients underwent concomitant surgical ablation for AF (ablation group), while 195 did not (no-ablation group). To evaluate comparative long-term clinical outcomes between the 2 groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied. Results: Early mortality rates were 3.5% (4/143) in the ablation group and 9.2% (18/195) in the no-ablation group (p=0.064). At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of AF recurrence was 12.3%±0.1% in the ablation group and 85.2%±0.1% in the no-ablation group (p<0.001). During follow-up (median, 103 months), the ablation group demonstrated significantly lower risks of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.495; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.312–0.784; p=0.003) and thromboembolic events (aHR, 0.212; 95% CI, 0.058–0.771;p=0.019) compared with the no-ablation group. Conclusions Concomitant AF ablation during redo valve surgery was associated with improved rhythm outcomes, survival, and freedom from thromboembolic events, supporting its consideration as a reasonable option even in this high-risk group.

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are widely employed as a therapeutic option for end-stage heart failure. We evaluated the outcomes associated with centrifugal-flow LVAD implantation, comparing 2 device models: the Heartmate 3 (HM3) and the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD). Methods: Data were collected from patients who underwent LVAD implantation between June 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022. We analyzed overall survival, first rehospitalization, and early, late, and LVAD-related complications. Results: In total, 74 patients underwent LVAD implantation, with 42 receiving the HM3 and 32 the HVAD. A mild Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score was more common among HM3 than HVAD recipients (p=0.006), and patients receiving the HM3 exhibited lower rates of preoperative ventilator use (p=0.010) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (p=0.039). The overall early mortality rate was 5.4% (4 of 74 patients), with no significant difference between groups. Regarding early right ventricular (RV) failure, HM3 implantation was associated with a lower rate (13 of 42 [31.0%]) than HVAD implantation (18 of 32 [56.2%], p=0.051). The median rehospitalization-free period was longer for HM3 recipients (16.9 months) than HVAD recipients (5.3 months, p=0.013).Furthermore, HM3 recipients displayed a lower incidence of late hemorrhagic stroke (p=0.016). In the multivariable analysis, preoperative use of continuous renal replacement therapy (odds ratio, 22.31; p=0.002) was the only significant predictor of postoperative RV failure. Conclusion The LVAD models (HM3 and HVAD) demonstrated comparable overall survival rates. However, the HM3 was associated with a lower risk of late hemorrhagic stroke.

Background: This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used. Methods: We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons. Results: A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177).After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28–0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation-related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23–0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17–11.93; p<0.001). Conclusion Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves.The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.