Objective: The Daegu region experienced the first wave of the pandemic at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Korea. Other non-COVID-19-related treatments during a community outbreak, such as cardiovascular diseases, were expected to impact emergency departments. In acute myocardial infarctions, time is an important factor affecting the patient outcome. This study examined how community COVID-19 outbreak affected STsegment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) care in emergency departments. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients visiting five emergency departments in the Daegu area who were diagnosed with STEMI from February 18 to April 17 each year from 2018 to 2020. The demographic characteristics, prehospital variables, in-hospital time variables, and treatment results were collected. The cases were divided into the pre-COVID period and the COVID period for comparison. Results: The study included 254 patients (194 pre-COVID, 60 during COVID). The symptom-to-door time did not differ. Although the door-to-first doctor time was shortened (4 min vs. 2 min, P=0.01), the rate of coronary angiogram along with the door-to-angiogram time and the door-to-balloon time did not change. The length of stay in the emergency department was delayed during COVID-19 (median, 136 min vs. 404 min; P<0.01). The in-hospital length of stay and mortality were similar in both groups. Conclusion The time to treat STEMI was not delayed significantly during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Daegu area compared with the pre-pandemic period. Mortality did not change. The length of stay was elongated significantly in the emergency department but not in the hospital.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Objective: The Daegu region experienced the first wave of the pandemic at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Korea. Other non-COVID-19-related treatments during a community outbreak, such as cardiovascular diseases, were expected to impact emergency departments. In acute myocardial infarctions, time is an important factor affecting the patient outcome. This study examined how community COVID-19 outbreak affected STsegment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) care in emergency departments. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients visiting five emergency departments in the Daegu area who were diagnosed with STEMI from February 18 to April 17 each year from 2018 to 2020. The demographic characteristics, prehospital variables, in-hospital time variables, and treatment results were collected. The cases were divided into the pre-COVID period and the COVID period for comparison. Results: The study included 254 patients (194 pre-COVID, 60 during COVID). The symptom-to-door time did not differ. Although the door-to-first doctor time was shortened (4 min vs. 2 min, P=0.01), the rate of coronary angiogram along with the door-to-angiogram time and the door-to-balloon time did not change. The length of stay in the emergency department was delayed during COVID-19 (median, 136 min vs. 404 min; P<0.01). The in-hospital length of stay and mortality were similar in both groups. Conclusion The time to treat STEMI was not delayed significantly during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Daegu area compared with the pre-pandemic period. Mortality did not change. The length of stay was elongated significantly in the emergency department but not in the hospital.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.

Background and Objectives: Several real-world studies have been done in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, information on its safety profile in patients with renal impairment is limited. XARENAL, a real-world study, aimed to prospectively investigate the safety profile of rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF with renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl], 15–49 mL/min). Methods: XARENAL is an observational single-arm cohort study in renal impairment NVAF patients. Patients were followed up approximately every 3 months for 1 year or until 30 days following early discontinuation. The primary endpoint was major bleeding events. All adverse events, symptomatic thromboembolic events, treatment duration, and renal function change from baseline were the secondary endpoints. Results: XARENAL included 888 patients from 29 study sites. Overall, 713 (80.3%) had moderate renal impairment (CrCl, 30–49 mL/min), and 175 (19.7%) had severe renal impairment (CrCl, 15–29 mL/min) with a mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 45.2±13.0 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The mean risk scores were 3.3±1.4 and 1.7±0.9 for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score and HAS-BLED score, respectively. An incidence proportion of 5.6% (6.2 events per 100 patient-years) developed major bleeding; however, fatal bleeding occurred in 0.5% (0.5 events per 100 patient-years). The mean change in the eGFR was 2.22±26.47 mL/min/1.73 m 2 per year. Conclusions XARENAL observed no meaningful differences in major bleeding events from other previous findings as well as renal function changes in rivaroxaban-treated NVAF patients with renal impairment, which is considered to be acceptable in clinical practice.