Key result
A 25-year registry and trial initiative improves recommended CHF therapy in the Russian Federation.
Why the study?
Assessing the level of diagnostics and treatment approaches for CHF in the Russian Federation was needed to align real-world clinical practice with existing clinical guidelines.
The 25-year efforts of the Russian Heart Failure Society through registries and trials have significantly improved the diagnosis and guideline-directed treatment of chronic heart failure in Russia.
May support sustained national registries to refine CHF care; leaves open generalizability to other systems.
An important objective of the creation of the Society of Experts in Heart Failure (SEHF) was to assess the level of diagnostics and approaches to the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) in the Russian Federation (RF), without which it was impossible to bring clinical practice to the optimal level and in consistency with the existing clinical guidelines. Thus, along with the development of Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of CHF, a series of registries and multicenter clinical trials (MCTs) was conducted to bring the indexes of real practice closer to the developed Guidelines. Numerous MCTs organized during the 25 years of the SEHF existence have significantly improved the substantiated and recommended therapy for CHF administered by practicing physicians in the Russian Federation. This article overviews the most important registries and MCTs that were conducted during the 25 years of the SEHF work and their effect on CHF diagnostics and treatment in the clinical practice in the RF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mareev VIu (2024) conducted a review in Chronic heart failure (CHF). Registries and multicenter clinical trials was evaluated. Registries and multicenter clinical trials conducted over 25 years by the Society of Experts in Heart Failure significantly improved recommended therapy for CHF in the Russian Federation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: