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 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.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

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.

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 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.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

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.

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: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.