Elliott M. Antman

Bio: Elliott M. Antman is an academic researcher from Brigham and Women's Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Myocardial infarction & TIMI. The author has an hindex of 161, co-authored 716 publications receiving 179462 citations. Previous affiliations of Elliott M. Antman include Duke University & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Use of Emergency Medical Service Transport Among Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With the Guidelines

Abstract: Background—Activation of emergency medical services (EMS) is critical for the early triage and treatment of patients experiencing ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, yet data regarding EMS use and its association with subsequent clinical care are limited. Methods and Results—We performed an observational analysis of 37 634 ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients treated at 372 US hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With the Guidelines between January 2007 and September 2009, and examined independent patient factors associated with EMS transportation versus patient self-transportation. We found that EMS transport was used in only 60% of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Older patients, those living farther from the hospital, and those with hemodynamic compromise were more likely to use EMS transport. In contrast, race, income, and education level did not appear to ...

Predictors of Bleeding and Time Dependence of Association of Bleeding With Mortality Insights From the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38)

Abstract: Background—The balance between benefit (ischemia protection) and risk (bleeding) is a key consideration in choosing the intensity of antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes. The goals of this analysis were to identify baseline characteristics that independently predict bleeding and to determine how bleeding events impact the subsequent mortality in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38). Methods and Results—Multivariable Cox regression analyses adjusted for treatment, baseline, and procedural variables were used to determine the predictors for serious (TIMI major or minor) bleeding. To analyze the hazard ratio and time dependency of bleeding on mortality, we used iterative day-to-day landmark analyses after the bleed. From the 13 420 patients with acute coronary syndromes included in this analysis, 534 (4.0%) experienced a serious bleeding event. Variables wit...

Evaluation of a rapid bedside assay for detection of serum cardiac troponin T.

Abstract: Objective. —To evaluate a rapid, qualitative, bedside immunoassay for cardiac-specific troponin T (cTnT) using a handheld device containing monoclonal antibodies. Design. —Comparison of rapid cTnT assay with clinical standard for diagnosis of myocardial infarction (Ml). Setting. —Tertiary care university medical center. Patients. —A cohort of 100 patients admitted for evaluation of chest pain who had sufficient blood samples at presentation for measurement of creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB fraction, and rapid cTnT as well as adequate clinical data to establish the diagnosis of Ml. Intervention. —None; treating physicians were blinded to rapid cTnT results. Main Outcome Measures. —Sensitivity and specificity of rapid cTnT assay for Ml; likelihood ratios of positive and negative rapid cTnT assay results; relative risk (RR) for serious cardiac events with positive rapid cTnT assay result on admission. Results. —Sensitivity of the rapid cTnT assay increased from 33% within 2 hours from the onset of chest pain to 86% after 8 hours ( P Conclusions. —The rapid cTnT assay is a simple, efficient test that for the first time provides clinicians with a useful laboratory tool for point-of-care evaluation of patients with chest pain. ( JAMA . 1995;273:1279-1282)

Efficacy and safety of perhexiline maleate in refractory angina. A double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of a novel antianginal agent.

Abstract: Despite large gains in the medical and surgical treatment of angina pectoris in the past two decades, many patients are refractory to conventional medical therapy and are unsuitable for a first or, more commonly, repeat coronary revascularization procedure. We evaluated the efficacy of perhexiline maleate, a drug with an antianginal mechanism of action in humans that is as yet unknown, by using a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design in 17 patients with refractory angina who continued to receive maximal antianginal therapy, typically including nitrates, a beta-blocker, and a calcium channel antagonist. In view of perhexiline's potential for hepatic and neurological toxicity, plasma drug levels were monitored and maintained in the 150-600 ng/ml range. Sixty-three percent of patients were judged perhexiline responders by objective exercise testing criteria, as compared with 18% of patients on placebo (p less than 0.05). By blinded review of subjective measures of anginal frequency and severity, 65% of patients noted an improvement while on perhexiline, whereas no patient identified the placebo phase with improvement. Side effects observed in 29% of patients were minor and related to transient elevations of blood levels of more than 600 ng/ml; no patient suffered hemodynamic or cardiac conduction abnormalities attributable to perhexiline. With attention to the pharmacokinetics of perhexiline's elimination in individual patients, this novel antianginal agent seems to be safe and effective and deserves further evaluation in patients already receiving maximal antianginal therapy who are not candidates for revascularization procedures.

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

Abstract: "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.