Search

Background: The number of individuals with advanced heart failure (HF) receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is growing. Postimplantation LVAD recipients return home to both rural and urban locations. The impact of rural or urban living on postimplantation outcomes has not been adequately explored., Objective: This cohort study examined adverse event-free survival, hospitalization-free survival, and all-cause mortality between rural and urban LVAD recipients in the first 2 years after implantation., Methods: Data from LVAD recipients (N = 141) implanted at a single center in the northeastern United States were analyzed. Recipients of LVAD were designated as rural or urban by county of residence. Adverse events, hospitalizations, and survival time were examined using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Thirty-seven percent of LVAD recipients in the cohort were rural. Two-thirds of all LVAD recipients experienced at least 1 adverse event (96/141, 68.1%). Although more urban recipients experienced adverse events, including death, rural versus urban models of both adverse events and survival were nonsignificant (adverse events: log-rank = 1.18, P = .28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.63; P = .89; survival: log-rank =2.81, P = .09; HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.17-1.23; P = .12). Rural LVAD recipients experienced significantly more hospitalizations and shorter hospitalization-free survival (log-rank = 6.67, P = .009). However, the HR for survival was nonsignificant (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.94-2.39; P = .08)., Conclusions: Frequent adverse events and hospitalizations are of ongoing concern for LVAD recipients. More data are necessary to understand why urban LVAD recipients may experience shorter survival time compared with rural counterparts. Hospitalization may serve as a protective factor for rural LVAD recipients.

Background: Self-management (SM) is an essential component of heart failure (HF) management. The mechanisms to improve SM behaviors are unclear., Objective: The objective of this study is to examine whether patient activation mediates the effect of self-efficacy on SM behaviors in rural HF patients., Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted using data collected from a randomized controlled trial aimed to improve SM behaviors. The main variables included were SM knowledge, self-efficacy, patient activation, and SM behaviors., Results: Mediation analysis showed patient activation mediated the effect of self-efficacy on SM. Both self-efficacy and patient activation were significantly related to SM behaviors, respectively (r = 0.46, P < .001; β = .48, P = .001). However, self-efficacy was no longer directly related to SM behaviors when patient activation was entered into the final model (β = .17, P = .248). Self-management knowledge and support were significant moderators. In patients with high levels of SM knowledge, patient activation did not mediate the effect of self-efficacy on SM behaviors (β = .15, P = .47). When SM support was entered in the path model, patient activation was not a significant mediator between self-efficacy and SM behavior at high (β = .27, P = .27) or low (β = .27, P = .25) levels of SM support., Conclusions: Study findings suggest that targeted SM support for high-risk HF patients with low SM knowledge and support may be useful. In addition, strategies to increase patient activation may improve HF patients' SM confidence.