Publications
Department of Medicine faculty members published more than 3,600 peer-reviewed articles in 2024.
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
BACKGROUND
Early data suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a safe and efficacious option for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, there is a scarcity of data comparing outcomes with open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ).
METHODS
Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with GOO who underwent EUS-GE or OGJ between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success.
RESULTS
Sixty-six patients were included of which 40 (60.0%) underwent EUS-GE and 26 (40.0%) underwent OGJ. Baseline characteristics were similar with respect to age (70.5 vs 69.7, p = 0.81), sex (42.5% vs 42.3% female, p = 0.99), median length of follow-up (98.0 vs 166.5 days, p = 0.8), prior failed intervention for GOO (22.5% vs 26.9%, p = 0.68), and the presence of altered anatomy (12.5% vs 30.8%, p = 0.07) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) of EUS-GE and 26 (100%) of OGJ patients (p = 0.15). EUS-GE was associated with faster resumption of oral intake (1.3 vs 4.7 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (5 vs 14.5 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in symptom recurrence (17.5% vs 19.2%, HR 1.85, CI 0.52-6.65, p = 0.34), reintervention (20% vs 11.5%, HR 0.82, CI 0.22-3.15, p = 0.78), death within 30 days (12.5% vs 3.8%, HR 0.80, CI 0.09-6.85, p = 0.84), or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 24.1%, HR 1.69, CI 0.53-5.41, p = 0.37) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. EUS-GE patients initiated chemotherapy sooner (17.7 vs 31.3 days, p = 0.033) and had lower overall costs as compared to OGJ ($49,387 vs $124,192, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
There were no significant differences in technical or clinical success, symptom recurrence, reintervention, 30-day readmission, or 30-day mortality between EUS-GE and OGJ. EUS-GE patients experienced shorter delays to resumption of oral intake and chemotherapy, had shorter lengths of stay, and reduced hospital costs. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to verify our results.
View on PubMed2021
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnea is common among rural Veterans, however, access to diagnostic sleep testing, sleep specialists, and treatment devices is limited. To improve access to sleep care, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented a national sleep telemedicine program. The TeleSleep program components included: 1) virtual clinical encounters; 2) home sleep apnea testing; and 3) web application for Veterans and providers to remotely monitor symptoms, sleep quality and use of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. This study aimed to identify factors impacting Veteran's participation, satisfaction and experience with the TeleSleep program as part of a quality improvement initiative.
METHODS
Semi-structured interview questions elicited patient perspectives and preferences regarding accessing and engaging with TeleSleep care. Rapid qualitative and matrix analysis methods for health services research were used to organize and describe the qualitative data.
RESULTS
Thirty Veterans with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) recruited from 6 VA telehealth "hubs" participated in interviews. Veterans reported positive experiences with sleep telemedicine, including improvements in sleep quality, other health conditions, and quality of life. Access to care improved as a result of decreased travel burden and ability of both clinicians and Veterans to remotely monitor and track personal sleep data. Overall experiences with telehealth technology were positive. Veterans indicated a strong preference for VA over non-VA community-based sleep care. Patient recommendations for change included improving scheduling, continuity and timeliness of communication, and the equipment refill process.
CONCLUSIONS
The VA TeleSleep program improved patient experiences across multiple aspects of care including a reduction in travel burden, increased access to clinicians and remote monitoring, and patient-reported health and quality of life outcomes, though some communication and continuity challenges remain. Implementing telehealth services may also improve the experiences of patients served by other subspecialties or healthcare systems.
View on PubMed2021
2021
BACKGROUND
Understanding whether International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes can be used to accurately detect substance use can inform their use in future surveillance and research efforts.
METHODS
Using 2015-2018 data from a retrospective cohort study of 602 safety-net patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of using ICD-10-CM codes to detect illicit substance use compared to retrospective self-report by substance (methamphetamine, cocaine, opioids [heroin or non-prescribed opioid analgesics]), self-reported use frequency, and type of healthcare encounter.
RESULTS
Sensitivity of ICD-10-CM codes for detecting self-reported substance use was highest for methamphetamine (49.5 % [95 % confidence interval: 39.6-59.5 %]), followed by cocaine (44.4 % [35.8-53.2 %]) and opioids (36.3 % [28.8-44.2 %]); higher for participants who reported more frequent methamphetamine (intermittent use: 27.7 % [14.6-42.6 %]; ≥weekly use: 67.2 % [53.7-79.0 %]) and opioid use (intermittent use: 21.4 % [13.2-31.7 %]; ≥weekly use: 52.6 % [40.8-64.2 %]); highest for outpatient visits (methamphetamine: 43.8 % [34.1-53.8 %]; cocaine: 36.8 % [28.6-45.6 %]; opioids: 33.1 % [25.9-41.0 %]) and lowest for emergency department visits (methamphetamine: 8.6 % [4.0-15.6 %]; cocaine: 5.3 % [2.1-10.5 %]; opioids: 6.3 % [3.0-11.2 %]). Specificity was highest for methamphetamine (96.4 % [94.3-97.8 %]), followed by cocaine (94.0 % [91.5-96.0 %]) and opioids (85.0 % [81.3-88.2 %]).
CONCLUSIONS
ICD-10-CM codes had high specificity and low sensitivity for detecting self-reported substance use but were substantially more sensitive in detecting frequent use. ICD-10-CM codes to detect substance use, particularly those from emergency department visits, should be used with caution, but may be useful as a lower-bound population measure of substance use or for capturing frequent use among certain patient populations.
View on PubMed