This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: Malnutrition exacerbates the prognosis of numerous diseases; however, its specific impact on severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains insufficiently explored. Methods: This multicenter study in Korea evaluated the nutritional status of 1,088 adults with severe COVID-19 using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) based on serum albumin levels and body weight. The patients were categorized into two groups: GNRI >98 (no-risk) and GNRI ≤98 (risk). Propensity score matching, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, was conducted. Results: Of the 1,088 patients, 642 (59%) were classified as at risk of malnutrition. Propensity score matching revealed significant disparities in hospital (34.3% vs. 19.4%, p<0.001) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (31.5% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001) between the groups. The risk group was associated with a higher hospital mortality rate in the multivariate Cox regression analyses following propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; p=0.001). Among the 670 elderly patients, 450 were at risk of malnutrition. Furthermore, the risk group demonstrated significantly higher hospital (52.1% vs. 29.5%, p<0.001) and ICU mortality rates (47.2% vs. 29.1%, p<0.001). The risk group was significantly associated with increased hospital mortality rates in the multivariate analyses following propensity score adjustment (HR, 1.66; p=0.001). Conclusion Malnutrition, as indicated by a low GNRI, was associated with increased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. This effect was also observed in the elderly population. These findings underscore the critical importance of nutritional assessment and effective interventions for patients with severe COVID-19.

Background: The development of frailty at hospital discharge affects the clinical outcomes in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors who had no frailty before hospitalization. We aimed to describe the prevalence of new frailty using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and evaluate its associated factors in patients with severe COVID-19 without pre-existing frailty before hospitalization. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of clinical data from a nationwide retrospective cohort collected from 22 hospitals between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021. The patients were at least 19 years old and survived until discharge after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of severe COVID-19. Development of new frailty was defined as a CFS score ≥5 at hospital discharge. Results: Among 669 severe COVID-19 survivors without pre-existing frailty admitted to the ICU, the mean age was 65.2±12.8 years, 62.5% were male, and 50.2% received mechanical ventilation (MV). The mean CFS score at admission was 2.4±0.9, and new frailty developed in 27.8% (186/483). In multivariate analysis, older age, cardiovascular disease, CFS score of 3–4 before hospitalization, increased C-reactive protein level, longer duration of corticosteroid treatment, and use of MV and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were identified as factors associated with new-onset frailty. Conclusion Our study suggests that new frailty is not uncommon and is associated with diverse factors in survivors of severe COVID-19 without pre-existing frailty.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality used as an alternative to surgery in patients with benign thyroid nodules, recurrent thyroid cancers (RTCs), and primary thyroid microcarcinomas. The Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KSThR) initially developed recommendations for the optimal use of RFA for thyroid tumors in 2009 and revised them in 2012 and 2017. As new meaningful evidence has accumulated since 2017 and in response to a growing global interest in the use of RFA for treating malignant thyroid lesions, the task force committee members of the KSThR decided to update the guidelines on the use of RFA for the management of RTCs based on a comprehensive analysis of current literature and expert consensus.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: Malnutrition exacerbates the prognosis of numerous diseases; however, its specific impact on severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains insufficiently explored. Methods: This multicenter study in Korea evaluated the nutritional status of 1,088 adults with severe COVID-19 using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) based on serum albumin levels and body weight. The patients were categorized into two groups: GNRI >98 (no-risk) and GNRI ≤98 (risk). Propensity score matching, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, was conducted. Results: Of the 1,088 patients, 642 (59%) were classified as at risk of malnutrition. Propensity score matching revealed significant disparities in hospital (34.3% vs. 19.4%, p<0.001) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (31.5% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001) between the groups. The risk group was associated with a higher hospital mortality rate in the multivariate Cox regression analyses following propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; p=0.001). Among the 670 elderly patients, 450 were at risk of malnutrition. Furthermore, the risk group demonstrated significantly higher hospital (52.1% vs. 29.5%, p<0.001) and ICU mortality rates (47.2% vs. 29.1%, p<0.001). The risk group was significantly associated with increased hospital mortality rates in the multivariate analyses following propensity score adjustment (HR, 1.66; p=0.001). Conclusion Malnutrition, as indicated by a low GNRI, was associated with increased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. This effect was also observed in the elderly population. These findings underscore the critical importance of nutritional assessment and effective interventions for patients with severe COVID-19.

Background: The development of frailty at hospital discharge affects the clinical outcomes in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors who had no frailty before hospitalization. We aimed to describe the prevalence of new frailty using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and evaluate its associated factors in patients with severe COVID-19 without pre-existing frailty before hospitalization. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of clinical data from a nationwide retrospective cohort collected from 22 hospitals between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021. The patients were at least 19 years old and survived until discharge after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of severe COVID-19. Development of new frailty was defined as a CFS score ≥5 at hospital discharge. Results: Among 669 severe COVID-19 survivors without pre-existing frailty admitted to the ICU, the mean age was 65.2±12.8 years, 62.5% were male, and 50.2% received mechanical ventilation (MV). The mean CFS score at admission was 2.4±0.9, and new frailty developed in 27.8% (186/483). In multivariate analysis, older age, cardiovascular disease, CFS score of 3–4 before hospitalization, increased C-reactive protein level, longer duration of corticosteroid treatment, and use of MV and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were identified as factors associated with new-onset frailty. Conclusion Our study suggests that new frailty is not uncommon and is associated with diverse factors in survivors of severe COVID-19 without pre-existing frailty.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.