Louis M. Revenig
Emory University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Louis M. Revenig.
Journal of The American College of Surgeons | 2015
Louis M. Revenig; Daniel Canter; Sungjin Kim; Yuan Liu; John F. Sweeney; Juan M. Sarmiento; David A. Kooby; Shishir K. Maithel; Laureen L. Hill; Viraj A. Master; Kenneth Ogan
BACKGROUND Frailty is an objective method of quantifying a patients fitness for surgery. Its clinical use is limited by the time needed to complete, as well as a lack of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes in identified frail patients. The purpose of this study was to critically analyze the components of the Fried Frailty Criteria, among other preoperative variables, to create a simplified risk assessment amenable to a busy clinical setting, while maintaining prognostic ability for surgical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN We performed a prospective evaluation of patients that included the 5-component Fried Frailty Criteria, traditional surgical risk assessments, biochemical laboratory values, and clinical and demographic data. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were the outcomes of interest. RESULTS There were 351 consecutive patients undergoing major intra-abdominal operations enrolled. Analysis demonstrated that shrinking and grip strength alone hold the same prognostic information as the full 5-component Fried Frailty Criteria for 30-day morbidity and mortality. The addition of American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score and serum hemoglobin creates a composite risk score, which facilitates easy classification of patients into discrete low (ref), intermediate (odds ratio [OR] 1.974, 95% CI 1.006 to 3.877, p = 0.048), and high (OR 4.889, 95% CI 2.220 to 10.769, p < 0.001) risk categories, with a corresponding stepwise increase in risk for 30-day postoperative complications. Internal validation by bootstrapping confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that 2 components of the Fried Frailty Criteria, shrinking and grip strength, hold the same predictive value as the full frailty assessment. When combined with American Society of Anesthesiologists score and serum hemoglobin, they form a straightforward, simple risk classification system with robust prognostic information.
International Braz J Urol | 2014
Ryan W. Dobbs; Lee A. Hugar; Louis M. Revenig; Usama Al-Qassab; John A. Petros; Chad W.M. Ritenour; Muta M. Issa; Daniel J. Canter
PURPOSE The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as the sole presenting symptom for bladder cancer has traditionally been reported to be low. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients who presented with LUTS in the absence of gross or microscopic hematuria. MATERIALS AND METHODS We queried our database of bladder cancer patients at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center (AVAMC) to identify patients who presented solely with LUTS and were subsequently diagnosed with bladder cancer. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic variables were examined. RESULTS 4.1% (14/340) of bladder cancer patients in our series presented solely with LUTS. Mean age and Charlson Co-morbidity Index of these patients was 66.4 years (range = 52-83) and 3 (range = 0-7), respectively. Of the 14 patients in our cohort presenting with LUTS, 9 (64.3%), 4 (28.6%), and 1 (7.1%) patients presented with clinical stage Ta, carcinoma in Situ (CIS), and T2 disease. At a median follow-up of 3.79 years, recurrence occurred in 7 (50.0%) patients with progression occurring in 1 (7.1%) patient. 11 (78.6%) patients were alive and currently disease free, and 3 (21.4%) patients had died, with only one (7.1%) death attributable to bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS Our database shows a 4.1% incidence of LUTS as the sole presenting symptom in patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer. This study suggests that urologists should have a low threshold for evaluating patients with unexplained LUTS for underlying bladder cancer.
International Braz J Urol | 2014
Daniel Canter; Louis M. Revenig; Zachary L. Smith; Ryan W. Dobbs; S. Bruce Malkowicz; Muta M. Issa; Thomas J. Guzzo
INTRODUCTION High-grade T1 (HGT1) bladder cancer represents a clinical challenge in that the urologist must balance the risk of disease progression against the morbidity and potential mortality of early radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. Using two non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) databases, we re-examined the rate of progression of HG T1 bladder cancer in our bladder cancer populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS We queried the NMIBC databases that have been established independently at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center (AVAMC) and the University of Pennsylvania to identify patients initially diagnosed with HGT1 bladder cancer. Demographic, clinical, and pathologic variables were examined as well as rates of recurrence and progression. RESULTS A total of 222 patients were identified; 198 (89.1%) and 199 (89.6%) of whom were male and non-African American, respectively. Mean patient age was 66.5 years. 191 (86.0%) of the patients presented with isolated HG T1 disease while 31 (14.0%) patients presented with HGT1 disease and CIS. Induction BCG was utilized in 175 (78.8%) patients. Recurrence occurred in 112 (50.5%) patients with progression occurring in only 19 (8.6%) patients. At a mean follow-up of 51 months, overall survival was 76.6%. Fifty two patients died, of whom only 13 (25%) patient deaths were bladder cancer related. CONCLUSIONS In our large cohort of patients, we found that the risk of progression at approximately four years was only 8.6%. While limited by its retrospective nature, this study could potentially serve as a starting point in re-examining the treatment algorithm for patients with HG T1 bladder cancer.
Journal of Surgical Research | 2016
Jessica L. Li; Martha A. Henderson; Louis M. Revenig; John F. Sweeney; David A. Kooby; Shishir K. Maithel; Viraj A. Master; Kenneth Ogan
Journal of Surgical Research | 2015
Louis M. Revenig; Daniel Canter; Martha A. Henderson; Kenneth Ogan; David A. Kooby; Shishir K. Maithel; Yuan Liu; Sungjin Kim; Viraj A. Master
Current Geriatrics Reports | 2014
Louis M. Revenig; Kenneth Ogan; Thomas J. Guzzo; Daniel Canter
Journal of The American College of Surgeons | 2017
Salima S. Makhani; Frances Kim; Yuan Liu; Zixun Ye; Jessica L. Li; Louis M. Revenig; Camille P. Vaughan; Theodore M. Johnson; Paul S. García; Kenneth Ogan; Viraj A. Master
The Journal of Urology | 2015
Daniel Canter; Louis M. Revenig; Yuan Liu; Sungjin Kim; Kenneth Ogan; Viraj A. Master
The Journal of Urology | 2014
Usama Al-Qassab; Louis M. Revenig; Sungjin Kim; Yuan Lin; Ryan W. Dobbs; Chad W.M. Ritenour; Muta M. Issa; Danial J. Canter
/data/revues/10727515/v219i4sS/S1072751514009697/ | 2014
Daniel J. Canter; Louis M. Revenig; Kenneth Ogan; David A. Kooby; Shishir K. Maithel; John F Sweeney; Juan M Sarmiento; Yuan Liu; Sungjin Kim; Viraj A. Master