[Hungarian Heart Failure Registry 2015-2016. Preliminary results]. / Magyar Szívelégtelenség Regiszter 2015­2016. Kezdeti eredmények.

Heart failure is associated with a poor prognosis despite significant advances in the pharmacological and device therapy and incurs very high cost because of frequent hospitalizations. Therefore, professional high-quality care is essential for both patients and the healthcare system. The best way to evaluate the quality of care for a particular disease is the use of disease-specific registries. Until now, there has not been a registry evaluating characteristics and management of heart failure patients in Hungary. For that reason, the Hungarian Society of Cardiology initiated the set-up of the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry. The Aim of this paper is to present the goals, methods and first year results of the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry. The goal of the Registry is to create a modern, web-based database that summarizes the data of large number of patients who are currently or were previously admitted to hospital or who are currently or were previously patients in an outpatient department due to severe heart failure (NYHA III-IV). Currently 17 cardiology departments participate in the development of the Registry. The planned number of patients is 2000. Initially follow-up was planned for one year (pilot study). After the evaluation of the relevant experiences of the pilot study, long-term follow-up is planned. The Registry collects information about the type of heart failure (heart failure with reduced - LVEF≤45% - vs. preserved - LVEF>45% - ejection fraction), etiology, co-morbidities, diagnostic methods, treatment as well as morbidity and mortality. After the first year, assessing the baseline parameters of 698 patients enrolled in the Registry we found that the majority of patients (87.8%) has heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and in 39.8% of the patients heart failure has an ischaemic origin. The most frequent co-morbidity was hypertension followed by diabetes, renal insufficiency and COPD. The patients were treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs in 94.4%, with beta blockers in 95.9%, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 73.9%. The mean dose of neurohormonal antagonists was higher than half of the target dose defined by current guidelines. The use of cardiac resynchronisation therapy was 11.7% and implantable cardioverter defibrillator was 25.8%. The pharmacological and device therapy of patients who were enrolled in the Registry until now was fit the current guidelines' recommendations. This, however, does not mean that the management of heart failure is without problems in our country but that high quality patient care is available with adequate heart failure treatment in cardiology departments dedicated to heart failure care. Orv. Hetil., 2017, 158(3), 94-100.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial: outcomes in patients receiving monotherapy.

In the main Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) report, we investigated outcomes in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive subjects treated with valsartan- or amlodipine-based regimens. In this report, we analyzed outcomes in 7080 patients (46.4%) who, at the end of the initial drug adjustment period (6 months), remained on monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar in the valsartan (N=3263) and amlodipine (N=3817) groups. Time on monotherapy was 3.2 years (78% of treatment exposure time). The average in-trial blood pressure was similar in both groups. Event rates in the monotherapy group were 16% to 39% lower than in the main VALUE trial. In the first analysis, we censored patients when they discontinued monotherapy ("censored"); in the second, we counted events regardless of subsequent therapy (intention-to-treat principle). We also assessed the impact of duration of monotherapy on outcomes. No difference was found in primary composite cardiac end points, strokes, myocardial infarctions, and all-cause deaths with both analyses. Heart failure in the valsartan group was lower both in the censored and intention-to-treat analyses (hazard ratios: 0.63, P=0.004 and 0.78, P=0.045, respectively). Longer duration of monotherapy amplified between-group differences in heart failure. New-onset diabetes was lower in the valsartan group with both analyses (odds ratios: 0.78, P=0.012 and 0.82, P=0.034). Thus, despite lower absolute event rates in monotherapy patients, the relative risks of heart failure and new-onset diabetes favored valsartan. Moreover, these findings support the feasibility of comparative prospective trials in lower-risk hypertensive patients.