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.

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: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.