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.

A perspective on the efficacy and safety of intensive antiplatelet therapy in the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 38.

Abstract: A primary goal of the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON–TIMI 38) was to test the hypothesis that an agent achieving a greater and more consistent level of platelet inhibition (prasugrel) would improve clinical ischemic outcomes compared with standard approved doses of clopidogrel in patients at moderate to high risk with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 1 The results of TRITON–TIMI 38 support this hypothesis, with a highly significant 19% relative reduction favoring prasugrel in the primary composite end point of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke, from 12.1% to 9.9%, over a period of up to 15 months of followup. This reduction was observed at the cost of more serious bleeding. 2

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Coronary Stenting A Clear Path for a Research Agenda

Abstract: It was an important and indeed remarkable observation when several trials reported the consistent finding that dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine was superior to aspirin and oral anticoagulation for prevention of major adverse cardiac events after deployment of a stent in a coronary artery.1 A major benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy was a lower rate of stent thrombosis. The incidence of coronary stent thrombosis in the modern era is reported to be approximately 1%, with an increased likelihood of occurrence in high-risk patient or lesion subsets. Although this rate may seem relatively low, stent thrombosis is associated with major myocardial infarction (MI) in 60% to 70% of cases, resulting in an early mortality rate of 20% to 25%. With increased use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a revascularization strategy and implantation of stents in coronary arteries with a small diameter, it is anticipated that the number of patients at risk for stent thrombosis may increase. It therefore continues to be important to construct pharmacological regimens that minimize its occurrence. Several risk factors for stent thrombosis have been identified, including patient- and/or lesion-specific characteristics, procedure-related factors, and inherent stent thrombogenicity.2 These risk factors, in turn, contribute to a state of enhanced platelet reactivity and thrombus formation, which promotes abrupt vessel closure. See p 1153 Although initial studies highlighting the benefits of dual antiplatelet therapy used aspirin and ticlopidine, clopidogrel is the thienopyridine of choice today because it is associated with a lower rate of intolerable side effects. It is noteworthy that clopidogrel as part of the dual antiplatelet regimen to support PCI has not undergone the type of extensive evaluation demanded of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or such devices as implantable cardioverter-defibrillators before they were recommended in practice guidelines for management of patients with …

Effect of rescue or adjunctive percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit artery after fibrinolytic administration on epicardial flow in nonculprit arteries

Abstract: We hypothesized that blood flow in noninfarct arteries would improve after percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit artery in the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The corrected Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count was measured in 94 patients (102 arteries) enrolled in the INTEGRITI, ENTIRE, and FASTER trials of reduced dose fibrinolytic and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition. The corrected TIMI frame count in nonculprit arteries improved by 3.4 ± 13.4 frames after percutaneous coronary intervention but remained significantly slower than flow in normal arteries.

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.