Francis, Dawn

Objective: Health care delivery has undergone a shift from in-person visits to more remote consultations via telehealth. Despite the increasing adoption of telehealth for tertiary medical centers’ new patient visits, its impact on subsequent in-person health care utilization has not been widely studied. Our objective was to examine differences in health care services used by patients who established care in-person versus those who initiated care remotely via telehealth. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who established care at one of our three main Mayo Clinic campuses through either an in-person or telemedicine visit between September 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024. We analyzed aggregate data related to downstream in-person services encompassing diagnostic studies, outpatient procedures, surgical procedures (referred to as “surgical yield”), specialist consultations, and follow-up appointments. Results: This study evaluated 252,356 new patient visits, of which 14,915 (5.9%) were performed remotely via telemedicine. Patients who established care in-person had an average of 10.47 subsequent in-person visits. Among patients who initiated care via telemedicine, 62.7% (9,351) later received in-person services, with an average of 16 in-person visits per patient. Surgical yield was higher for patients who started remotely via telehealth and then came on-site, at 29% compared to 16% for those who started with an on-site visit. States bordering the clinic locations had increased percentages of in-person visits compared to states that required patients to travel longer distances. Conclusions: Patients who established care through an initial telemedicine appointment and then came on-site had more downstream encounters and surgical procedures than those who began in-person. This may be due to the ability to efficiently coordinate multiple appointments within a condensed timeframe, optimizing the planning of on-site visits. Additionally, both patients and providers may selectively utilize telemedicine to identify individuals who would derive the greatest benefit from in-person care.

ABSTRACT Development of concurrent achalasia and chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) is rare, although esophageal dysmotility is common in patients with CIPO and may suggest worse clinical outcomes. We present a case of a 63-year-old man with a 15-year history of CIPO who developed postprandial regurgitation, vomiting, and dysphagia and was diagnosed with achalasia through radiographic and endoscopic findings. This is only the third case in the reported literature that involves both conditions. Rather than representing 2 separate disorders, CIPO and achalasia may instead represent neurogenic variants of 1 underlying condition affecting the myenteric plexus.

Abstract Background and study aim The clinical impact of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) limited to the distal esophagus (Lim-EE) vs. diffuse involvement (Dif-EE) is unknown. This study compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of Lim-EE vs. Dif-EE. Patients and methods This retrospective, single-center study of patients with EoE between December 2011 and December 2019 evaluated treatment response based on repeated pathology and/or clinical improvement using comparative statistics. Results 479 patients were identified (126 Lim-EE, 353 Dif-EE). Lim-EE patients had a higher incidence of endoscopically identified esophagitis (23.0 % vs. 14.7 %; P = 0.04), were older (50.8 [SD 16.2] vs. 46.4 [SD 15.3] years; P = 0.007), and were more likely to present with iron deficiency anemia (5.6 % vs. 1.7 %; P = 0.05), dyspepsia (15.1 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.06) or for Barrett’s surveillance (10.3 % vs. 3.7 %; P = 0.02). Patients with Dif-EE presented more frequently with dysphagia (57.2 % vs. 45.2 %; P = 0.02). Both groups had similar proton pump inhibitor (87.2 % vs. 83.3 %; P = 0.37) and steroid (12.8 % vs. 21.4 %; P = 0.14) use. Patients with Lim-EE had a better clinicopathologic response (61.5 % vs. 44.8 %; P = 0.009). On multivariate analysis, EoE extent predicted treatment response with an odds ratio of 1.89 (95 % confidence interval 1.13–3.20; P = 0.02). However, treatment response based only on repeat biopsy results showed no statistical difference between Lim-EE (52.5 %) and Dif-EE (39.7 %; P = 0.15). Conclusions Lim-EE may represent a distinct phenotype separate from Dif-EE, with more overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease and better treatment response.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is taking a massive toll on health care systems globally. We developed the COVID-19 virtual clinic (CVC) in conjunction with drive through testing to cope with this situation. There are two arms of the CVC: (1) a screening arm and (2) positive patient arm. Screening is performed over the phone based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guideline. Positive patients are followed at regular intervals by video appointments where concerns can be addressed by a provider while also tracking symptom progression. We enrolled 63 positive patients out of 1,153 screened for COVID-19 as of this writing. The CVC continues to address patients' concerns and symptoms in an effort to minimize emergency department and hospital patient volumes, as incidence increases. Drive through testing in conjunction with a virtual clinic allows us to provide high-quality care in an anxious time without consuming excessive personal protective equipment or unnecessarily exposing health care workers. This article could serve as a model to guide other practices to cope with this and future pandemics.

Goals: The goal of this study is to examine the causes, type of adverse events (AE), and effects of elective intubation in outcomes associated with esophageal food impaction (EFI). Background: EFI is a gastrointestinal emergency requiring immediate medical attention. Study: Retrospective review of all EFI cases presenting at 3 large tertiary centers from October 1, 2011 to October 31, 2014 and all cases registered in the Clinical Outcome Research Initiative (CORI) database from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2012. Statistical analysis compared health care utilization, AEs, and outcomes in patients with or without elective intubation. Results: A total of 214 cases presenting with EFI at our 3 referral hospitals and 4950 cases in the CORI database met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of structural disorders was similar in the Mayo Clinic and CORI datasets: 24.3% and 27.7% had strictures, and 3.8% and 2.5% had a tumor, respectively. AEs in the nonintubation group were 14.7% compared with 33.3% in the elective intubation group (P=0.003); however, 71.0% of these events were associated with EFI itself and not therapeutic procedure. Esophageal AEs were common (15.0%), followed by pulmonary and cardiovascular events with 3.0% and 1.4%, respectively. Severity of the AEs was influenced by the impaction-to-endoscopy time. Conclusions: Prevalence of structural esophageal disorders was similar to previous smaller studies. Elective intubation was associated with increased AEs; however, this is felt to be because of the nature of EFI itself and not by therapeutic endoscopy. Prolonged impaction-to-endoscopy time was associated with severe AEs.