Citations

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.