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.

High Levels of Platelet Inhibition With Abciximab Despite Heightened Platelet Activation and Aggregation During Thrombolysis for Acute Myocardial Infarction Results From TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 14

Abstract: Background—We evaluated platelet activation and aggregation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with thrombolytic therapy alone or with reduced-dose thrombolysis and concomitant abciximab. Methods and Results—The study was performed in 20 control subjects and 51 patients with AMI before and after reperfusion with either alteplase or reteplase or reduced doses of these agents with concomitant abciximab. Platelet activation was assayed by platelet surface expression of P-selectin. Turbidometric platelet aggregation in response to ADP was measured in patients before thrombolytic therapy and 90 minutes and 24 hours after the beginning of thrombolytic therapy. P-selectin expression was greater at baseline in patients than normal control subjects (30.4% versus 9.8%, P<0.0001) but was identical between the 2 groups after stimulation with ADP (64.4% versus 69.3%, P=0.37). However, at 24 hours, basal P-selectin expression declined in patients (P=0.0025 versus baseline), whereas ADP-stimulate...

Validation of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk score for unstable angina pectoris and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the TIMI III registry.

Abstract: The 1.4 million patients admitted with unstable angina pectoris and non‐ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UAP/NSTEMI) each year are a heterogenous population with varying risks of death and recurrent cardiac events. The Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score for UAP/NSTEMI was created to better stratify patients according to easily obtainable information gathered from the initial history, electrocardiogram, and cardiac markers. 1 The TIMI risk score was derived and validated in the TIMI 11B and Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non‐Q-wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) trials and accurately predicted adverse outcomes through 14 days. It has also been applied in the Platelet Receptor Inhibition for Ischemic Syndrome Management in Patients Limited by Unstable Signs and Symptoms (PRISM-PLUS) and Treat Angina with Aggrastat and determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy (TACTICS)-TIMI 18 Trials. 2,3 However, because clinical trials of UAP/ NSTEMI usually select higher risk patients (with electrocardiographic changes and/or positive cardiac markers), there has been questions whether the TIMI risk score would be valid in an unselected population of patients representative of general clinical practice. The goal of this study was to validate the TIMI risk score in a large unselected population of patients with UAP/NSTEMI and assess its long-term predictive value. ••• The details of the TIMI III Registry have been previously reported. 4 Briefly, patients admitted be

Low-Pressure Cardiac Tamponade

Abstract: An elderly man developed cardiac tamponade from a tuberculous pericardial effusion but without such typical manifestations as pulsus paradoxus and jugular-vein distension. This case illustrates the difficulties in clinical recognition of low-pressure cardiac tamponade, which can develop in the presence of dehydration and hypovolemia. The hemodynamic factors that account for this phenomenon are discussed.

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.