Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Card Fail. 2023 Mar 31;29(10):1398–1411. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.03.013

Table 2.

Characteristics of Study Participants (n=272), by Time of Last PRO Assessment and Reason for Withdrawal/Dropout

Group
A B C D E F Groups B-F
No Assessments Completed (n=21) Pre-Implant Assessment Only (n=84) Withdrawn for Heart Transplant After Month 3 (n=23)a Withdrawn/Dropped Out for Other Reason After Month 3 (n=16) Month 6 Assessment Completed (n=34)b All Pre- and Post-Implant Assessments Completed (n=94) p-value Model sample (n=251)
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Age in Years, mean (SD) 61.0 (9.5) 56.6 (11.2) 50.7 (12.3) 50.4 (17.7) 58 (12.6) 55.5 (12.0) 0.030 55.4 (12.4)
Female 3 (14%) 26 (31%) 3 (13%) 4 (25%) 10 (29%) 21 (22%) 0.396 64 (26%)
Married/committed partner 11 (52%) 50 (62%) 13 (59%) 4 (25%) 23 (68%) 57 (61%) 0.096 147 (60%)
Ethnicity, Race
 Hispanic, any race 1 (5%) 13 (16%) 2 (9%) 3 (19%) 1 (3%) 6 (6%) 0.090 (Non-Hispanic White vs. All Others) 25 (10%)
 Non-Hispanic, White 16 (76%) 42 (52%) 15 (65%) 9 (56%) 22 (65%) 67 (72%) 155 (63%)
 Non-Hispanic, Black 3 (14%) 21 (26%) 3 (13%) 4 (25%) 6 (18%) 16 (17%) 50 (20%)
 Non-Hispanic, Other 1 (5%) 5 (6%) 3 (13%) 0 (0%) 5 (15%) 4 (4%) 17 (7%)
Highest Education
 High School or Less 6 (30%) 30 (36%) 11 (48%) 8 (50%) 14 (41%) 29 (32%) 0.514 (High School or Less vs. All Others) 92 (37%)
 Attended College/Tech School 8 (40%) 27 (33%) 6 (26%) 5 (31%) 10 (29%) 27 (29%) 75 (30%)
 Associate/Bachelor’s  Degree 4 (20%) 20 (24%) 3 (13%) 1 (6%) 8 (24%) 29 (32%) 61 (25%)
Graduate Degree 2 (10%) 6 (7%) 3 (13%) 2 (13%) 2 (6%) 7 (8%) 20 (8%)
Clinical Characteristics (prior to LVAD Implant)
LVAD Implant Strategy
 Bridge to transplant/Short-term McS 5 (38%) 17 (21%) 15 (65%) 2 (13%) 9 (26%) 24 (26%) 0.003 (Destination vs. All Others) 67 (27%)
 Possible bridge to transplant/Possible short-term MCS 0 (0%) 17 (21%) 4 (17%) 3 (20%) 2 (6%) 22 (24%) 48 (19%)
 Destination therapy/Long-term MCS 8 (62%) 48 (59%) 4 (17%) 10 (67%) 23 (68%) 47 (51%) 132 (53%)
Etiology of Heart Failure
 Dilated cardiomyopathy 9 (69%) 48 (57%) 17 (74%) 11 (73%) 22 (65%) 65 (70%) 0.494 (Dilated vs. All Others) 163 (65%)
 Ischemic cardiomyopathy 2 (15%) 21 (25%) 5 (22%) 3 (20%) 7 (21%) 22 (24%) 58 (23%)
 Other 2 (15%) 15 (18%) 1 (4%) 1 (7%) 5 (15%) 6 (6%) 28 (11%)
NYHA Class
 Class I 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 0.568 (I-III vs. IV) 1 (0%)
 Class II 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (2%) 5 (2%)
 Class III 1 (8%) 16 (19%) 7 (30%) 2 (13%) 6 (18%) 18 (19%) 49 (20%)
 Class IV 11 (92%) 67 (80%) 15 (65%) 13 (87%) 26 (79%) 72 (77%) 193 (78%)
Intermacs Profile
 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) &  2 (progressive decline) 8 (67%) 39 (49%) 6 (26%) 5 (33%) 9 (28%) 25 (27%) 0.686 (1–2 vs. 37) 84 (35%)
 3 (stable, but inotrope-dependent) 2 (17%) 24 (30%) 10 (43%) 8 (53%) 14 (44%) 41 (45%) 97 (40%)
 4–7 (ambulatory advanced heart failure) 2 (17%) 16 (20%) 7 (30%) 2 (13%) 9 (28%) 25 (27%) 59 (25%)
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction
 30+ (normal/mild/moderate) 0 (0%) 3 (4%) 1 (5%) 1 (7%) 4 (13%) 3 (3%) 0.334 (Severe vs. All Others) 12 (5%)
 20–29 (moderate/severe) 5 (38%) 32 (40%) 5 (26%) 6 (43%) 9 (28%) 17 (20%) 69 (28%)
 <20 (severe) 8 (62%) 45 (56%) 13 (68%) 7 (50%) 19 (59%) 67 (77%) 151 (61%)
a

Pre-Implant Assessment missing for n=1 participant

b

Pre-Implant Assessment missing for n=9 participants; Month 3 Assessment missing for n=27

Entries in the table represent the number of participants (percentage), unless otherwise specified. Missing data were excluded.

MCS: mechanical circulatory support

PRO: Patient-Reported Outcome

p-value for comparison of Groups A through F