Jeffrey M. Tyler
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Jeffrey M. Tyler has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Christopher Brown
Interventional Cardiolgy at Scripps Clinic Cedars Sinai Smidt Heart Institute Los Angeles California USA
1 shared publication- David A. Baran
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA
1 shared publication - Jacob C. Jentzer
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN
1 shared publication - Navin Kumar Kapur
Tufts Medical Center
1 shared publication Ross F. Garberich
Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern Hospital Minneapolis Minnesota USA
1 shared publicationSantiago Garcia
Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern Hospital Minneapolis Minnesota USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 19 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 99 (1) , 19-26
Variability in reporting of key outcome predictors in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock trials
Background: Among acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock (AMICS), a number of key variables predict mortality, including cardiac arrest (CA) and shock classification as proposed by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI). Given this prognostic importance, we examined the frequency of reporting of high risk variables in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AMICS patients.Methods: We identified 15 RCTs enrolling 2,500 AMICS patients and then reviewed rates of CA, baseline neurologic status, right heart catheterization data, lactate levels, inotrope and vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, mechanical ventilation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mechanical circulatory support, and specific cause of death based on the primary manuscript and Data in S1.Results: A total of 2,500 AMICS patients have been enrolled in 15 clinical trials over 21 years with only four trials enrolling >80 patients. The reporting frequency and range for key prognostic factors was: neurologic status (0% reported), hypothermia (28% reported, prevalence 33–75%), specific cause of death (33% reported), cardiac index and wedge pressure (47% reported, range 1.6–2.3 L min−1 m−2 and 15–24 mmHg), lactate (60% reported, range 4–7.7 mmol/L), LVEF (73% reported, range 25–45%), CA (80% reported, prevalence 0–92%), MCS (80% reported, prevalence 13–100%), and mechanical ventilation (93% reported, prevalence 35–100%). This variability was reflected in the 30‐day mortality which ranged from 20–73%.Conclusions: In a comprehensive review of seminal RCTs in AMICS, important predictors of outcome were frequently not reported. Future efforts to standardize CS trial data collection and reporting may allow for better assessment of novel therapies for AMICS.
- 19 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 99 (1) , 19-26
Variability in reporting of key outcome predictors in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock trials
Background: Among acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock (AMICS), a number of key variables predict mortality, including cardiac arrest (CA) and shock classification as proposed by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI). Given this prognostic importance, we examined the frequency of reporting of high risk variables in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AMICS patients.Methods: We identified 15 RCTs enrolling 2,500 AMICS patients and then reviewed rates of CA, baseline neurologic status, right heart catheterization data, lactate levels, inotrope and vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, mechanical ventilation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mechanical circulatory support, and specific cause of death based on the primary manuscript and Data in S1.Results: A total of 2,500 AMICS patients have been enrolled in 15 clinical trials over 21 years with only four trials enrolling >80 patients. The reporting frequency and range for key prognostic factors was: neurologic status (0% reported), hypothermia (28% reported, prevalence 33–75%), specific cause of death (33% reported), cardiac index and wedge pressure (47% reported, range 1.6–2.3 L min−1 m−2 and 15–24 mmHg), lactate (60% reported, range 4–7.7 mmol/L), LVEF (73% reported, range 25–45%), CA (80% reported, prevalence 0–92%), MCS (80% reported, prevalence 13–100%), and mechanical ventilation (93% reported, prevalence 35–100%). This variability was reflected in the 30‐day mortality which ranged from 20–73%.Conclusions: In a comprehensive review of seminal RCTs in AMICS, important predictors of outcome were frequently not reported. Future efforts to standardize CS trial data collection and reporting may allow for better assessment of novel therapies for AMICS.