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.

Declining incidence of ventricular fibrillation in myocardial infarction. Implications for the prophylactic use of lidocaine.

Abstract: BACKGROUNDThe purposes of the present investigation were 1) to track the incidence of primary ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the control and lidocaine-treated groups in the randomized control trials (RCTs) of lidocaine prophylaxis against primary VF in acute myocardial infarction, with particular emphasis on the time frame of the randomized trial, and 2) to estimate the number of patients who must receive lidocaine currently to prevent one episode of VF.METHODS AND RESULTSThe following variables from RCTs published between 1969 and 1988 were entered into logistic regression models to predict the percent of patients developing VF: year of publication of the RCT, method of data analysis used in the RCT, route and technique of lidocaine administration, duration of monitoring for VF, and exclusion criteria before randomization (congestive heart failure/cardiogenic shock, ventricular tachycardia/VF, or bradycardia/atrioventricular block). Year of publication was a significant predictor of VF in both the cont...

Use of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of acute coronary artery syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract: ContextLow-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) possess several potential pharmacological advantages over unfractionated heparin as an antithrombotic agent.ObjectiveTo systematically summarize the clinical data on the efficacy and safety of LMWHs compared with unfractionated heparin across the spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), and as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE for articles from 1990 to 2002 using the index terms heparin, enoxaparin, dalteparin, nadroparin, tinzaparin, low molecular weight heparin, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary angiography, coronary angioplasty, thrombolytic therapy, reperfusion, and drug therapy, combination. Additional data sources included bibliographies of articles identified on MEDLINE, inquiry of experts and pharmaceutical companies, and data presented at recent national and international cardiology conferences.Study SelectionWe selected for review randomized trials comparing LMWHs against either unfractionated heparin or placebo for treatment of ACS, as well as trials and registries examining clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetics, and/or phamacodynamics of LMWHs in the setting of PCI. Of 39 studies identified, 31 fulfilled criteria for analysis.Data ExtractionData quality was determined by publication in the peer-reviewed literature or presentation at an official cardiology society–sponsored meeting.Data SynthesisThe LMWHs are recommended by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology for treatment of unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Clinical trials have demonstrated similar safety with LMWHs compared with unfractionated heparin in the setting of PCI and in conjunction with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Finally, LMWHs show promise as an antithrombotic agent for the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction.ConclusionsThe LMWHs could potentially replace unfractionated heparin as the antithrombotic agent of choice across the spectrum of ACSs. In addition, they show promise as a safe and efficacious antithrombotic agent for PCI. However, further study is warranted to define the benefit of LMWHs in certain high-risk subgroups before their use can be universally recommended.

Management of Bleeding With Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Era of Specific Reversal Agents.

Abstract: Vitamin K antagonists are commonly used by clinicians to provide anticoagulation to patients who have or are at risk of having thrombotic events. In addition to familiarity with the dosing and monitoring of vitamin K antagonists, clinicians are accustomed to using vitamin K if there is a need to reverse the anticoagulant effect of vitamin K antagonists. There are now 4 new non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that are attractive alternatives to vitamin K antagonists. Despite similar or lower rates of serious bleeding with NOACs in comparison with warfarin, there is a pressing need for strategies to manage bleeding when it does occur with NOACs and to reverse the pharmacological effect of these agents if needed. Important steps in minimizing bleeding risks with NOACs include dose adjustment of the agents in the setting of renal dysfunction and avoidance of the concomitant use of other antithrombotic agents if feasible. Laboratory measurement of the anticoagulant effect of NOACs is best accomplished with specialized assays, although some of the more widely available coagulation tests can provide information that is potentially useful to clinicians. Nonspecific hemostatic agents such as prothrombin complex concentrates and recombinant factor VIIa can be used to reverse the effect of NOACs. More specific reversing agents include the approved humanized monoclonal antibody fragment idarucizumab for reversing the effects of dabigatran, the investigational factor Xa decoy andexanet alfa, and the synthetic small molecule ciraparantag. Both andexanet and ciraparantag have been reported to reverse the effects of the anti-Xa NOACs (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and a number of other anticoagulant agents in common clinical use, as well.

Performance of the ABC Scores for Assessing the Risk of Stroke or Systemic Embolism and Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48.

Abstract: Background: The ABC (age, biomarker, clinical history)-stroke and ABC-bleeding risk scores incorporate clinical variables and cardiovascular biomarkers to estimate risk of stroke or systemic emboli...

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.