Aims The European CRT Survey is a joint initiative of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology evaluating the contemporary implantation practice of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in Europe. Methods and results Patients who had a successful CRT implantation were enrolled from 141 centres in 13 countries between November 2008 and June 2009. Baseline demographics, clinical and implantation data were collected, with a follow‐up of ∼1 year (9–15 months). The current report describes clinical outcomes including symptom severity, cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, and survival. A total of 2438 patients were enrolled, and follow‐up data were acquired from 2111 patients (87%). The population included important groups of patients poorly represented in randomized controlled trials, including very elderly patients and those with prior device implantation, atrial fibrillation, and/or QRS duration <120 ms. Investigators reported substantial improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at follow‐up. Patient self‐assessment indicated that 81% of the patients felt improved, 16% reported no change, and 4% reported deterioration. During follow‐up, 207 (10%) patients died, 346 (16%) had a CV hospitalization, and 501 (24%) died or had CV hospitalization. Worse NYHA functional class, atrial fibrillation, ischaemic aetiology, and device type (CRT‐P, i.e. CRT alone) were associated with poorer survival. Women had a better outcome, as did patients who had a CRT‐D (with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator function) device. Conclusions Outcomes including death and hospitalization in this European CRT survey were consistent with results from clinical trials of CRT. At 1 year follow‐up, most patients who received a CRT device considered their symptoms improved compared with their pre‐implant assessment. Although prospective, this is an observational study of successful CRT implantations, and outcomes in subgroup analyses must be interpreted with appropriate conservatism. Clinical study no: NCT 01185392

AimsThe prognostic value of signs of congestion in patients suspected of having chronic heart failure (CHF) is unknown. Our objectives were to define their prevalence and specificity in diagnosing CHF and to determine their prognostic value in patients in a community heart failure clinic. Methods and resultsAnalysis of referrals to a community clinic for patients with CHF symptoms. Systolic CHF (S-HF) was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45%, heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HeFNEF) as LVEF . 45%, and amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide .50 pmol L 21 ; other subjects were defined as not having CHF. Signs of congestion were as follows: no signs; right heart congestion (RHC: oedema, jugular venous distension); left heart congestion (LHC: lung crackles); or both (R + LHC). Of 1881 patients referred, 707 did not have CHF, 853 had S-HF, and 321 had HeFNEF. The median inter-quartile range (IQR) age was 72 years (64-78), 40% were women, and LVEF was 47% (35 -59). Overall, 417 patients had RHC of whom 49% had S-HF and 21% HeFNEF. Eighty-five patients had LHC of whom 43% had S-HF and 20% had HeFNEF. One hundred and seventy-two patients had R + LHC of whom 71% had S-HF and 16% had HeFNEF. During a median (IQR) follow-up of 64(44-76) months, 40% of the entire patient cohort died. The combination of R + LHC signs was an independent marker of an adverse prognosis (x 2 -log-rank test ¼ 186.1, P , 0.0001). ConclusionClinical signs of congestion are independent predictors of prognosis in ambulatory patients with suspected CHF.--