Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The utility of heart failure registries: a descriptive and comparative study of two heart failure registries
  1. Joan Carles Trullàs1,2,3,
  2. Òscar Miró4,5,
  3. Francesc Formiga3,6,
  4. Francisco Javier Martín-Sánchez5,7,
  5. Manuel Montero-Pérez-Barquero3,8,
  6. Javier Jacob5,9,
  7. Raúl Quirós-López3,10,
  8. Pablo Herrero Puente5,11,
  9. Luís Manzano3,12,
  10. Pere Llorens5,13
  11. and members of the RICA and EAHFE registries
    1. 1Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de Olot, Olot, Girona, Catalonia, Spain
    2. 2Medical Science Department, University of Girona, Girona, Catalonia, Spain
    3. 3Member of the RICA-SEMI group, Spain
    4. 4Emergency Department, Hospital Clínic, Investigation Group “Urgencias: procesos y patologías”, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
    5. 5Member of the ICA-SEMES group, Spain
    6. 6Internal Medicine Service, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
    7. 7Emergency Department, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
    8. 8Internal Medicine Service, IMIBIC/Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
    9. 9Emergency Department, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
    10. 10Internal Medicine Service, Hospital Costa del Sol, Marbella, Málaga, Spain
    11. 11Emergency Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
    12. 12Internal Medicine Service, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
    13. 13Emergency Department, Hospital General de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
    1. Correspondence to Dr Joan Carles Trullàs, Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de Olot (Girona), Universitat de Girona, Av. dels Països Catalans, 86, Olot, Girona17800, Spain; jctv5153{at}


    Background and aim Registries are useful to address questions that are difficult to answer in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to describe and compare two heart failure (HF) cohorts from two Spanish HF registries.

    Methods We compared the RICA and EAHFE registries, both of which are prospective multicentre cohort studies including patients with decompensated HF consecutively admitted to internal medicine wards (RICA) or attending the emergency department (EAHFE). From the latter registry we only included patients who were admitted to internal medicine wards.

    Results A total of 5137 patients admitted to internal medicine wards were analysed (RICA: 3287 patients; EAHFE: 1850 patients). Both registries included elderly patients (RICA: mean (SD) age 79 (9) years; EAHFE: mean (SD) age 81 (9) years), with a slight predominance of female gender (52% and 58%, respectively, in the RICA and EAHFE registries) and with a high proportion of patients with preserved ejection fraction (58% and 62%, respectively). Some differences in comorbidities were noted, with diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, chronic renal failure and atrial fibrillation being more frequent in the RICA registry while cognitive and functional impairment predominated in the EAHFE registry. The 30-day mortality after discharge was 3.4% in the RICA registry and 4.8% in the EAHFE registry (p<0.05) and the 30-day readmission rate was 7.5% in the RICA registry (readmission to hospital) and 24.0% in the EAHFE registry (readmission to emergency department) (p<0.001).

    Conclusions We found differences in the clinical characteristics of patients admitted to Spanish internal medicine wards for decompensated HF depending on inclusion in either the RICA or EAHFE registry.

    Statistics from

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.