scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evidence from clinical trials within the last 5 years requires that significant changes be made to existing guidelines for the diagnosis and management of unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

61 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The TIMI IIIB and TACTICS-TIMI 18 trials as mentioned in this paper were two trials of an early invasive strategy in unstable angina (UA)/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) that were conducted nearly a decade apart but with virtually identical enrollment criteria and designs, except that upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition was mandated and coronary artery stenting was routinely used in TACS-TMI 18.
Abstract: Background— TIMI IIIB and TACTICS-TIMI 18 were 2 trials of an early invasive strategy in unstable angina (UA)/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) that were conducted nearly a decade apart but with virtually identical enrollment criteria and designs, except that upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition was mandated and coronary artery stenting was routinely used in TACTICS-TIMI 18. We sought to examine the effect of these advances on clinical outcomes and the benefits of an early invasive strategy in UA/NSTEMI. Methods and Results— Patients were stratified on the basis of their TIMI risk score into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories. Within each risk category, the rates of clinical outcomes and the benefit of an early invasive strategy were compared. Compared with patients in TIMI IIIB and adjusting for baseline risk, patients in TACTICS-TIMI 18 had lower rates of death, MI, or rehospitalization for acute coronary syndromes (OR, 0.62; P<0.0001). Across both trials, the benefit of an...

61 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: SCD is the most common cause of cardiovascular death in patients with atrial fibrillation and has several distinct predictors, some of which are modifiable, which may be considered in planning research and treatment strategies for patients withAtrial Fibrillation.
Abstract: Background Recent findings suggest that atrial fibrillation is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). We examined the incidence, characteristics, and factors associated with SCD in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results SCD was defined as witnessed death ≤60 minutes from the onset of new symptoms or unwitnessed death 1 to 24 hours after being observed alive, without another known cause of death. Predictors of SCD were examined using multivariate competing risks models. Over 2.8 years (median), 2349 patients died (40.5 per 1000 patient‐years), of which 1668 (71%) were cardiovascular deaths. SCD was the most common cause of cardiovascular death (n=749; median age 73 years; 70.6% male). Most SCD events occurred out of hospital (92.8%) and without prior symptoms (66.0%). Predictors of SCD included low ejection fraction, heart failure, and prior myocardial infarction ( P <0.001 for each). Additional significant baseline predictors of SCD, but not of other causes of death, included male sex, electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy, higher heart rate, nonuse of beta blockers, and use of digitalis. The latter was associated with SCD in patients with or without heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio 1.55 [95% CI 1.29–1.86] and 1.56 [95% CI 1.14–2.11], respectively; P interaction=0.73). The rate of SCD was numerically but not statistically lower with edoxaban (1.20% per year with lower dose edoxaban; 1.28% per year with higher dose edoxaban) compared with warfarin (1.40% per year). Conclusion SCD is the most common cause of cardiovascular death in patients with atrial fibrillation and has several distinct predictors, some of which are modifiable. These findings may be considered in planning research and treatment strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: . Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

60 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Substantial evidence exists that patients receiving LMWH for an ACS can safely undergo cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention, and concerns regarding the transition of these patients from the medical service to the cardiacCatheterization laboratory should not impede the upstream use of LMWH.

59 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors defined the prognostic value of serum myoglobin in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and established that myoglobin may be useful for the early diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI).

59 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
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 …

45,105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined, and the most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described, illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands.

31,656 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
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.

25,711 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 May 2003-JAMA
TL;DR: The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated, and empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator.
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.

24,988 citations

Book
23 Sep 2019
TL;DR: 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.
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.

21,235 citations