Small bowel bleeding constitutes approximately 5%–10% of all gastrointestinal bleeding and remains a significant diagnostic challenge because of both the anatomical inaccessibility of the small intestine and the intermittent nature of bleeding. Although innovations such as capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have improved lesion detection, localization frequently fails when bleeding is obscure or transient. To address these diagnostic challenges, provocative mesenteric angiography (PMA) has been introduced as an adjunctive diagnostic modality. By dissolving microthrombi and preventing spontaneous hemostasis, PMA can reveal concealed bleeding sites that remain undetectable with other diagnostic techniques. This procedure carries inherent risks, including excessive bleeding, and therefore should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists within a multidisciplinary team capable of urgent surgical intervention if needed. The patient in this case had been taking long-term warfarin following cardiac valve replacement and presented with hematochezia. Although computed tomography angiography and endoscopic evaluation suggested small bowel bleeding, repeated examinations failed to identify the exact bleeding focus. Subsequently, using PMA with heparin, the bleeding focus in the ileum was successfully localized, hemostasis was achieved, and no rebleeding occurred thereafter.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in predicting survival outcomes based on breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutational status in epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Medical records of 448 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a single tertiary institution in Korea were retrospectively analyzed. Area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed using the CA125 and HE4 values after surgery and 3 cycles of chemotherapy to predict 1-year survival based on the BRCA mutational status.Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to obtain progression-free and overall survival to evaluate CA125 and HE4 effectiveness in predicting survival outcomes. Results: A total of 423 patients were analyzed, including 180 (42.6%) who underwent interval debulking surgery (IDS) and 243 (57.4%) who underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS).BRCA mutations were observed in 37 (15.2%) and 44 (22.4%) patients in the PDS and IDS groups, respectively. CA125 and HE4 normalization demonstrated the highest specificity in patients with or without BRCA mutations, with specificities of 97.1% and 99.1% in the PDS group and 78.6% and 86.2% in the IDS group, respectively. Normalizing HE4 alone may be an effective prognostic marker, with an area under the curve of 0.774 and specificity of 75.0%, in patients with BRCA mutations. Conclusion Normalizing both biomarkers emerged as the most effective predictive marker for the 1-year recurrence rate, regardless of BRCA mutational status. A negative HE4 value can be a useful predictor for 1-year recurrence-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in predicting survival outcomes based on breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutational status in epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Medical records of 448 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a single tertiary institution in Korea were retrospectively analyzed. Area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed using the CA125 and HE4 values after surgery and 3 cycles of chemotherapy to predict 1-year survival based on the BRCA mutational status.Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to obtain progression-free and overall survival to evaluate CA125 and HE4 effectiveness in predicting survival outcomes. Results: A total of 423 patients were analyzed, including 180 (42.6%) who underwent interval debulking surgery (IDS) and 243 (57.4%) who underwent primary debulking surgery (PDS).BRCA mutations were observed in 37 (15.2%) and 44 (22.4%) patients in the PDS and IDS groups, respectively. CA125 and HE4 normalization demonstrated the highest specificity in patients with or without BRCA mutations, with specificities of 97.1% and 99.1% in the PDS group and 78.6% and 86.2% in the IDS group, respectively. Normalizing HE4 alone may be an effective prognostic marker, with an area under the curve of 0.774 and specificity of 75.0%, in patients with BRCA mutations. Conclusion Normalizing both biomarkers emerged as the most effective predictive marker for the 1-year recurrence rate, regardless of BRCA mutational status. A negative HE4 value can be a useful predictor for 1-year recurrence-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations.

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.

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.