BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent in- and ex- clusion criteria, but limited data exists regarding generalisability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data for 16922 patients from five randomised clinical trials and 46914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorised into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used in- and ex-clusion criteria. A total of 26104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at one year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients (standardised mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 -1.03) but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12 -1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20- 1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients. CONCLUSION: In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries
