About

Dr. Edlira Tam, DO, MS, FACC, serves as an Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine and is an Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiologist at Stony Brook Heart Institute. She holds key positions as the Associate Director of the Ventricular Assist Device/Mechanical Circulatory Support program and the Associate Director of the Cardiogenic Shock program. Her clinical practice focuses on managing patients with heart failure, complex valve and coronary diseases, and various cardiomyopathies, with expertise in evaluating advanced therapies such as ventricular assist devices and heart transplants. Dr. Tam's research is dedicated to the application of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with cardiogenic shock, and she has contributed significantly to the field of pericardial disease through collaboration with experts like Dr. Allan Klein. Beyond her clinical and research roles, she oversees quality measures within her programs and is actively involved in training residents and fellows, demonstrating her commitment to medical education. Her academic background includes an undergraduate degree with honors from Queens College, a Master of Science, and a DO from NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine. She completed her residency at Cleveland Clinic and her cardiology fellowship at Montefiore Medical Center, where she also served as Chief Cardiology Fellow. She further specialized with an Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship at Montefiore Medical Center before joining Stony Brook in 2021.

Selected publications

• 26-CCC-11433-ACC BIVENTRICULAR HEART FAILURE ASSOCIATED WITH EXOGENOUS TESTOSTERONE AND SELECTIVE ESTROGEN RECEPTOR MODULATOR USE

  Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026-03-27

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• 26-CCC-16921-ACC EARLY ECMO CANNULATION AND BIVAD SUPPORT PRIOR TO ORTHOTOPIC HEART TRANSPLANTATION IN A YOUNG MALE WITH GIANT CELL MYOCARDITIS

  Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026-03-27

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Safety of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remains a condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in treatment of AMI-CS, however the safety of this therapy compared to alternative forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) such as percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) remains unclear. Aim The goal of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the association of ECMO compared to pVAD with safety outcomes patients presenting with AMI-CS. Methods A database search was performed for studies reporting on the association of ECMO compared to pVAD with safety outcomes in patients with AMI-CS. The endpoints of interest were device-related limb complications, ischemic cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and occurrence of moderate to severe bleeding. The databases searched included Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase. The search was not restricted by time or publication status. Registry studies were excluded from this analysis. Results A total of 6 studies with 868 participants (410 treated with ECMO, 458 treated with pVAD) met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 62 years old, 80.3% were men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26%, mean follow-up was 5.2 months (ranging 1-12 months). Treatment with ECMO in patients with AMI-CS was associated with significantly higher risk of device-related limb ischemia and moderate to severe bleeding compared to pVAD (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.56-5.17; p<0.01; OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.17-4.06; p=0.01). Heterogeneity for these analyses was low (I2=0%). Treatment with ECMO in patients with AMI-CS was not associated with higher risk of ischemic CVA compared to pVAD (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47-5.43; p=0.45). Heterogeneity for this analysis was low (I2=0%). Conclusion In patients presenting with AMI-CS, use of VA-ECMO is associated with significantly higher risk of device-related limb ischemia and bleeding compared to use of pVAD but is not associated with higher risk of ischemic CVA. Given these significant risks, additional high-quality studies are needed to further elucidate the clinical benefits of ECMO use in this patient population.Safety events of ECMO vs medical therapy

  PublisherDOI

• Safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after atrial fibrillation ablation

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background Although there has been substantial evidence to support the use of catheter ablation in rhythm management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation post-ablation remains unclear. Purpose This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety of discontinuing versus continuing anticoagulation in patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation with successful maintenance of sinus rhythm post-ablation. Methods A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, identifying studies that evaluated the association of anticoagulation, including vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), in patients with AF who underwent ablation procedures. Clinical endpoints include occurrence of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and major bleeding events. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies were primary sources of literature. The search was not restricted to time or publication status. Results A total of 18,947 patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation met the inclusion criteria. 5,508 patients continued anticoagulation, and 13,439 patients had their anticoagulant discontinued in the follow-up period. Studies included both patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Studies required patients to complete at least eight weeks of anticoagulation after ablation prior to discontinuation. The average CHADSVASc score was 2.2 (Range 1.1 – 4.1), average age was 63 years old, and 63.7% were men. The anticoagulation group received either VKA or DOACs. Mean follow up was 31.4 months (Range 21.6 – 45.6 months). There was no statistically significant difference in risk of acute CVA in the follow up period in patients who discontinued anticoagulation compared to patients who continued anticoagulation (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.71-3.14, p=0.29). However, continuation of anticoagulation after AF ablation was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding events (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.34, 6.49; p<0.01). This increased bleeding risk was seen in studies involving patients on unspecified anticoagulation with either VKA or DOACs and in studies exclusively involving patients who were treated with DOACs. Conclusions Discontinuation of anticoagulation does not appear to be associated with increased risk of CVA in AF patients who undergo successful catheter ablation and is associated with lower risk of major bleeding events on long-term follow-up. Additional high-quality studies with extended follow-up time and extended monitoring for recurrent AF are required to further characterize when providers may safely consider discontinuing anticoagulation in the appropriate patient populations. This meta-analysis marks a key step towards addressing this question.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

• UTILITY OF INTRAAORTIC BALLOON COUNTERPULSATION IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION COMPLICATED BY CARDIOGENIC SHOCK

  Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025-03-29

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• Prophylactic anticoagulation for left ventricular thrombus in patients with anterior myocardial infarction

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Introduction Left ventricular (LV) thrombus is a notable complication of anterior acute myocardial infarction (MI). The general consensus for treatment of this complication is anticoagulation AC) with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) upon diagnosis. However, evidence regarding use of prophylactic AC to prevent LV thrombus in patients with anterior MI remains inconclusive. Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical risks and benefits of prophylactic AC in patients with anterior MI. Methods A literature search was conducted looking for studies reporting on use of prophylactic AC in patients with anterior MI and evaluating clinical and safety endpoints. The clinical endpoints of interest included all-cause mortality, LV thrombus formation, and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) or transient ischemic attacks (TIA). Safety endpoints included risk of any type of reported bleeding and risk of major bleeding. The search was performed using the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase and was not restricted by time or publication status. Results A total of 8 studies with 979 patients with anterior MI (497 treated with prophylactic AC vs. 482 not treated with AC) were included. Mean follow-up was 15.8 months (ranging 0.5 - 96 months), mean age was 61.3, 72% were men, mean LVEF was 43% (ranging 22% - 60%). AC used included VKA, DOACs, and heparin products. In patients with anterior MI, use of AC was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality when LVEF is <40% but not in patients with LVEF >40% (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.17-0.91; p=0.03; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.85; p=0.70). Use of AC was associated with lower risk of LV thrombus formation regardless of LVEF (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.58; p<0.01). In patients with anterior MI, use of AC was associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower risk of CVA/TIA when LVEF is < or = 40% (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.14-1.33; p=0.15). Use of AC was associated with increased risk of any bleeding in patients with anterior MI and LVEF < or = 40% but was not associated with increased risk of major bleeding in patients with anterior MI regardless of LVEF (OR 5.03, 95% CI 1.08-23.43; p=0.01; OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.87-1.58; p=0.30). Conclusion In patients who suffer from anterior MI, use of prophylactic therapeutic anticoagulation appears to be beneficial in preventing LV thrombus formation. Use of AC may also lower the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes such as all-cause mortality, however this effect appears to be dependent on LVEF, with benefit specifically seen in patients with LVEF < or = 40%. Use of AC may increase the risk of any bleeding but does not appear to increase the risk of major bleeding. Further studies are needed to further establish the utility of therapeutic AC in patients with anterior MI, with particular focus on benefits based on LV systolic function.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

• Association of colchicine with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background While there has been significant evidence to implicate inflammation in the development of coronary artery disease, the association of colchicine use and its anti-inflammatory effects with risk of cardiovascular outcomes remains unclear. The current literature on colchicine use in the setting of non-ST Elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI), ST Elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) has yielded conflicting results. Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between use of colchicine and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ACS. Methods A literature search was performed using the databases Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science, identifying studies that evaluated the association of colchicine with clinical endpoints in patients with ACS. Clinical endpoints of interest included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, development of congestive heart failure (CHF), recurrent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies were the primary sources of literature. The search was not restricted to time or publication status. Results A total of 16 studies with 28,129 ACS patients met inclusion criteria. 12,837 patients received colchicine, 15,302 patients did not receive colchicine. Mean follow up duration was 14.9 months, mean age was 61.4 years old, 80.3% of participants were men. Use of colchicine was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE and AMI in the follow up period (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57–0.91; p=0.006; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.92; p=0.004). Subgroup analysis demonstrated this association was primarily in patients with mixed ACS as no significant difference was noted in patients exclusively presenting with STEMI (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 – 2.43; p=0.52 in STEMI patients). There was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, or CHF in patients treated with or without colchicine (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74–1.22; p=0.70; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57–1.29; p=0.46; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.49–1.75; p=0.82). Conclusions Use of colchicine is associated with significantly lower risk of MACE and AMI in patients with ACS, however this association may be dependent on type of ACS. There was no association between use of colchicine and lower risk of cardiac outcomes in patients presenting exclusively with STEMI. Additional high-quality studies are needed to further elucidate the utility of colchicine in patients with differing types of ACS.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

• Safety of PCI in patients with coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a frequent coexisting issue in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). While professional societies have recommended complete revascularization in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve implantation, the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with CAD and severe AS who are undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. Purpose In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the safety of PCI in patients with CAD and severe AS who are undergoing TAVI. Methods We performed a literature search using the databases Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science, looking for studies that evaluated the association between PCI and safety outcomes in patients with CAD and severe AS undergoing TAVI. The endpoints of interest were risk of device-related vascular complications, major bleeding, minor bleeding, renal failure, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The search was not limited by time or publication status. Results A total of 11 studies with 6,758 patients with CAD and severe AS who were undergoing TAVI met inclusion criteria. 1,842 patients received PCI while 4,916 patients did not receive PCI. The mean follow-up duration was 4.4 months (ranging 1 month to 24 months), mean age was 82.1 years old, 49.2% were men, the mean aortic valve area was 0.7, mean aortic valve gradient was 45 mmHg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.6%. There was a statistically significantly higher risk of device-related vascular complications in patients who received PCI compared to patients who did not receive PCI (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.47, 2.62; p<0.01). The heterogeneity for this analysis was low (I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in risk of major bleeding, minor bleeding, renal failure, or CVA/TIA between patients who did or did not receive PCI (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81, 1.7; p=0.41; OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.91, 1.86; p=0.15; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37, 1.16; p=0.14; OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49, 1.12; p=0.16). Conclusions In patients with both CAD and severe AS who are undergoing TAVI, PCI is associated with significantly higher risk of device-related vascular complications but no difference in risk of major/minor bleeding, renal failure, or CVA/TIA. Given the potential risks for adverse events shown in this study, additional high-quality studies are needed to better establish the clinical benefit of performing PCI in this patient population.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

• Utility of perioperative beta blocker therapy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background Although there is abundant literature supporting the clinical utility of beta blocker initiation before non-cardiac surgery in high-risk patient populations, data supporting the routine initiation or continuation of beta blockers before and after cardiac surgery remains unclear. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the use of peri-operative beta-blockers in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and evaluate clinical outcomes such as rates of postoperative arrhythmias, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), and in-hospital and all-cause mortality. Methods A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, identifying studies that evaluated the association of pre-operative initiation and continuation of beta-blocker with clinical endpoints in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The endpoints of interest included development of post-operative atrial fibrillation (AFib), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), in-hospital mortality, all-cause mortality, and CVA. Results 19 studies with 3749 patients (2018 treated with beta blockers, 1731 not treated with beta blockers) met inclusion criteria. The average follow-up duration was 12 days (ranging from 1 day to 90 days), the mean age was 63.4 years, 70% were men. Cardiac surgeries including coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement, and mitral valve replacement. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, perioperative use of beta blockers was associated with a significantly lower risk of post-op AFib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31-0.78; P<0.01). Subgroup analysis shows this association was primarily with use of IV Landiolol and with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower risk of AFib in patients initiated or maintained on oral beta blockers (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20-0.41; p<0.01; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.16; P=0.06). There was a statistically significantly lower risk of developing SVT after cardiac surgery in patients treated with beta-blockers (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.86, P=0.02). The association between beta blocker use and other clinical endpoints including the risk of CVA, in-hospital mortality, and all-cause mortality were not statistically significant, however there was a trend toward lower risk of both in-hospital and all-cause mortality in patients who were treated with beta-blockers compared to those who were not (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16-1.36; P=0.16; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17-1.47; P=0.21). Discussion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that in patients who are undergoing cardiac surgery, preoperative initiation of beta-blockers, particularly IV Landilol, or continuation of chronic beta-blockers is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, particularly post-operative AFib and SVT. The use of beta-blockers may also be associated with a mortality benefit, however additional high-quality studies with extended follow-up time and monitoring are needed to fully elucidate this association.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

• Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of left ventricular thrombus

  European Heart Journal · 2025-11-01

  article

  Abstract Background Left ventricular (LV) thrombus is a complication of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure that confers an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Although there has been some updates in professional society recommendations, the standard of care for treatment of LV thrombus remains use of Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) due to their efficacy in thrombus resolution and prevention of thromboembolic events. While direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have become a preferred over VKA for treatment of other cardiac conditions necessitating anticoagulation, their role for treatment of LV thrombus remains secondary at this time due to limited available evidence. Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DOAC vs VKA for the treatment of LV thrombus. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify studies that directly assessed DOAC and VKA use in treatment of LV thrombus and their association with clinical and safety endpoints. Clinical endpoints of interest included risk of cerebrovascular accident (CVA), any systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and persistent LV thrombus. Safety endpoints included any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and GI bleeding. The search included the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. TriNetX and registry studies were excluded. Results A total of 26 studies and 4272 patients were included (1381 treated with DOAC, 2891 treated with VKA). The mean follow-up duration was 15.3 months (ranging 3 to 28.4 months), mean age was 60.3 years old, 79.6% were men, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.6%. Compared to VKA, use of DOAC for treatment of LV thrombus was associated with a significantly lower risk of CVA (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80;p=0.02). There was a non-statistically significant trend toward lower risk of any systemic embolic event with DOAC use (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33-1.07;p=0.10). There was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality or persistence of LV thrombus with treatment using DOAC versus VKA (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58-1.27;p=0.43; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20;p=0.91). There was no difference in risk of any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, or GI bleeding in patients with LV thrombus treated with DOAC compared to VKA (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69-1.35;p=0.84; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41-1.36;p=0.48; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.36;p=0.98). The heterogeneity for all analyses in this study was low (I2=0% for all endpoints except any bleeding, where I2=21%). Conclusions Compared to VKA, use of DOAC is associated with lower risk of CVA, a trend toward lower risk of any systemic embolism, and no difference in risk of all-cause mortality or persistence of LV thrombus. Use of DOAC is also not associated with any increased risk for bleeding events. Additional high quality studies are required to further solidify the role of DOAC for treatment of LV thrombus.Figure 1 Figure 2

  PublisherDOI

Awards & honors

• FACC (Fellow of the American College of Cardiology)