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.

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.

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: The K-ELUVIA study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Eluvia™, a polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent, for femoropopliteal artery disease using data from a prospective Korean multicenter registry. Methods: A total of 105 patients with femoropopliteal artery disease who received endovascular treatment (EVT) with Eluvia™ stents at 7 Korean sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort and followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the 2-year clinical patency. The secondary endpoint was 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Mean patient age was 68.2±10.4 years, and most patients (82.7%) were male. Mean lesion length was 168.3±117.6 mm. Chronic total occlusion was found in 57.7% of patients.Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II) type C or D lesions were present in 46.1% of patients. Procedural success was achieved in 99.0% of patients. The clinical patency rate was 84.4% at 1 year after EVT and 76.3% at 2 years post-EVT. The freedom from TLR rate was 89.1% at 1 year after EVT and 79.1% at 2 years post-EVT. Chronic total occlusion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–11.67; p=0.039) and smaller mean stent diameter (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16– 0.98; p=0.044) were identified as independent predictors of loss of clinical patency at 2 years. Conclusions The K-ELUVIA study demonstrated favorable 2-year clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes of Eluvia stent for femoropopliteal artery lesions in real-world practice.

Background and Objectives: The K-ELUVIA study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Eluvia™, a polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent, for femoropopliteal artery disease using data from a prospective Korean multicenter registry. Methods: A total of 105 patients with femoropopliteal artery disease who received endovascular treatment (EVT) with Eluvia™ stents at 7 Korean sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort and followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the 2-year clinical patency. The secondary endpoint was 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Mean patient age was 68.2±10.4 years, and most patients (82.7%) were male. Mean lesion length was 168.3±117.6 mm. Chronic total occlusion was found in 57.7% of patients.Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II) type C or D lesions were present in 46.1% of patients. Procedural success was achieved in 99.0% of patients. The clinical patency rate was 84.4% at 1 year after EVT and 76.3% at 2 years post-EVT. The freedom from TLR rate was 89.1% at 1 year after EVT and 79.1% at 2 years post-EVT. Chronic total occlusion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–11.67; p=0.039) and smaller mean stent diameter (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16– 0.98; p=0.044) were identified as independent predictors of loss of clinical patency at 2 years. Conclusions The K-ELUVIA study demonstrated favorable 2-year clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes of Eluvia stent for femoropopliteal artery lesions in real-world practice.

Purpose: Nutritional support for adult critically ill patients is essential due to the high risk of malnutrition, which can lead to severe complications. This paper aims to develop evidence-based guidelines to optimize nutritional support in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process was used to develop and summarize the evidence on which the recommendations were based. Clinical outcomes were assessed for seven key questions. Results: We recommend the following: (1) initiate enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 hours after treatment as it is associated with improved outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays; (2) early EN is preferred over early parenteral nutrition due to better clinical outcomes; (3) the use of supplementary parenteral nutrition to meet energy targets during the first week of ICU admission in patients receiving early EN is conditionally recommended based on patient-specific needs; (4) limited caloric support should be supplied to prevent overfeeding and related complications, particularly in the early phase of critical illness; (5) higher protein intake is suggested to improve clinical outcomes, such as muscle preservation and overall recovery; (6) additional enteral or parenteral glutamine is conditionally recommended against due to the lack of significant benefit and potential harm; and (7) fish oil-containing lipid emulsions is conditionally recommended due to their potential to enhance clinical outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays. Conclusion These evidence-based recommendations can improve clinical outcomes and support healthcare providers in making informed decisions about nutritional interventions in the ICU.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare immune-mediated complication of a viral infection commonly involving the bilateral thalamus and has been reported mainly in children. Here, we describe the MRI findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated ANE in two pediatric patients, including a 7-year-old girl with fever and mental change, and a 6-year-old girl with fever and generalized seizures. Brain MRI revealed symmetrical T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery high-signal intensity lesions in the bilateral thalamus with central hemorrhage. In one patient, the thalamic lesions showed a trilaminar pattern on the apparent diffusion coefficient map. This report emphasizes the importance of creating awareness regarding these findings in patients with COVID-19, particularly in children with severe neurological symptoms. Furthermore, it provides a literature review of several documented cases of COVID-19 presenting with bilateral thalamic hemorrhagic necrosis, suggesting a diagnosis of ANE.

Purpose: Nutritional support for adult critically ill patients is essential due to the high risk of malnutrition, which can lead to severe complications. This paper aims to develop evidence-based guidelines to optimize nutritional support in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process was used to develop and summarize the evidence on which the recommendations were based. Clinical outcomes were assessed for seven key questions. Results: We recommend the following: (1) initiate enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 hours after treatment as it is associated with improved outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays; (2) early EN is preferred over early parenteral nutrition due to better clinical outcomes; (3) the use of supplementary parenteral nutrition to meet energy targets during the first week of ICU admission in patients receiving early EN is conditionally recommended based on patient-specific needs; (4) limited caloric support should be supplied to prevent overfeeding and related complications, particularly in the early phase of critical illness; (5) higher protein intake is suggested to improve clinical outcomes, such as muscle preservation and overall recovery; (6) additional enteral or parenteral glutamine is conditionally recommended against due to the lack of significant benefit and potential harm; and (7) fish oil-containing lipid emulsions is conditionally recommended due to their potential to enhance clinical outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays. Conclusion These evidence-based recommendations can improve clinical outcomes and support healthcare providers in making informed decisions about nutritional interventions in the ICU.