Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Background: There is a need to update the cardiovascular (CV) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to reflect the current practice in sepsis. We previously proposed the modified CV SOFA score from data on blood pressure, norepinephrine equivalent dose, and lactate as gathered from emergency departments. In this study, we externally validated the modified CV SOFA score in multicenter intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted on ICU patients at six hospitals in Korea. We included adult patients with sepsis who were admitted to ICUs. We compared the prognostic performance of the modified CV/total SOFA score and the original CV/total SOFA score in predicting 28-day mortality. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the calibration curve, respectively. Results: We analyzed 1,015 ICU patients with sepsis. In overall patients, the 28-day mortality rate was 31.2%. The predictive validity of the modified CV SOFA (AUROC, 0.712; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.677–0.746; P < 0.001) was significantly higher than that of the original CV SOFA (AUROC, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.611–0.677). The predictive validity of modified total SOFA score for 28-day mortality was significantly higher than that of the original total SOFA (AUROC, 0.747 vs. 0.730; 95% CI, 0.715–0.779; P = 0.002). The calibration curve of the original CV SOFA for 28-day mortality showed poor calibration. In contrast, the calibration curve of the modified CV SOFA for 28-day mortality showed good calibration. Conclusion In patients with sepsis in the ICU, the modified SOFA score performed better than the original SOFA score in predicting 28-day mortality.

Purpose: Considering the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission through infected droplets, emergency department (ED) operations in response to febrile patients should be planned. We investigated the general and clinical characteristics of febrile patients visiting the ED and changes in admission rates via the ED during the COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patients who visited 402 EDs in the Republic of Korea with febrile symptoms between January 27 and May 31, 2020 and compared them to those enrolled before the COVID-19 outbreak. The primary outcome was admission rate; the secondary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Results: In total, 266519 patients had febrile symptoms at ED presentation after the COVID-19 outbreak. In 2019, before the outbreak, there were 437762 patients. The rate of ED visits among pediatric patients (aged <15 years) decreased to 21.4% after the COVID-19 outbreak, compared with 41.8% in 2019. The proportion of patients admitted after ED management was higher after the outbreak (31.3%) than before (25.2%). The adjusted odds ratio for admission was 1.04 (95% confidence interval: 1.02–1.05) after the outbreak. Compared to before the COVID-19 outbreak, the median ED LOS increased by 16 min after the outbreak. Conclusion This study confirmed that admission rates and ED LOS increased for febrile patients visiting the ED after the COVID-19 outbreak. This could provide evidence for developing ED-related strategies in response to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and other infectious disease pandemics.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.
Abdomen ; Budgets ; Chest Pain ; Critical Care ; Dyspnea ; Emergencies ; Heart ; Heart Arrest ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance ; Insurance, Health ; Korea ; Medical Records ; National Health Programs ; Patient Care ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Prescriptions ; Shock ; Thorax ; Ultrasonography

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the clinical characteristics and prognoses of patients with septic shock who transferred to the emergency department (ED) in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: This study was performed using a prospective, multi-center registry of septic shock, with the participation of 11 tertiary referral centers in the Korean Shock Society between October 2015 and February 2017. We classified the patients as a transferred group who transferred from other hospitals after meeting the inclusion criteria upon ED arrival and a non-transferred group who presented directly to the ED. Primary outcome was hospital mortality. We conducted multiple logistic regression analysis to assess variables related to in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,098 patients were included, and we assigned 717 patients to the transferred group and 1,381 patients to the non-transferred group. The initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was higher in the transferred group than the non-transferred group (6; interquartile range [IQR], 4–9 vs. 6; IQR, 4–8; P < 0.001). Mechanical ventilator (29% vs. 21%, P < 0.001) and renal replacement therapy (12% vs. 9%, P=0.034) within 24 hours after ED arrival were more frequently applied in the transferred group than the non-transferred group. Overall hospital mortality was 22% and there was no significant difference between transferred and non-transferred groups (23% vs. 22%, P=0.820). Multivariable analysis showed an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality of 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.28; P=0.999) for the transferred group compared with the non-transferred group. CONCLUSION: The transferred group showed higher severity and needed more organ support procedures than the nontransferred group. However, inter-hospital transfer did not affect in-hospital mortality.
Emergencies* ; Emergency Service, Hospital* ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Mortality ; Observational Study* ; Odds Ratio ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Renal Replacement Therapy ; Retrospective Studies* ; Sepsis ; Shock ; Shock, Septic* ; Tertiary Care Centers* ; Ventilators, Mechanical