Patient‐Reported Outcomes Among Patients Pre– and Post–Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Retrospective and Comparative Study

Introduction: Despite many studies reporting the patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients, there seem to be limited studies reporting the PROs of patients from Central Asia, specifically in Kazakhstan. This study compared the patients’ PROs before LVAD, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after LVAD implantation. Design: This research is a retrospective study of the 6‐year (2017–2022) EQ‐5D‐5L data collected among Kazakhstani LVAD patients. Methods: The study was conducted at the Heart Center in Astana City, Kazakhstan. Part of the pre‐ and postoperative check‐ups of LVAD patients is the assessment of the patients’ PROs using the EQ‐5D‐5L to the patients. One hundred ( n = 100) Kazakhstani patients had complete EQ‐5D‐5L data pre‐LVAD, 1‐month, 6‐month, and 12‐month post‐LVAD. “Repeated measures’ analysis of variance with Greenhouse–Geisser correction” was used to compare the PROs between the different data collection times. Results: The analysis revealed a significant decline in the EQ‐5D‐5L mean score from pre‐LVAD to 1‐month, 6‐month, and 12‐month post‐LVAD. There was also a significant decline in the “Level Sum Score” mean score from 1‐month post‐LVAD to 12‐months post‐LVAD. However, no significant difference in the mean scores between 6‐month post‐LVAD and 12‐month post‐LVAD was found. For the visual analog scale (VAS) of the tool, a significant increase in the self‐reported health was revealed from the pre‐LVAD period to 1‐month, 6‐month and 12‐month post‐LVAD. The data indicate that age, smoking history, number of comorbidities, and type of diagnosis were potential factors associated with the patients’ PROs over time. Conclusions: The results imply that the patients’ self‐reported health and PROs significantly improved after LVAD. Individual patient characteristics such as age, smoking history, comorbidities, and disease etiology could potentially influence the magnitude and trajectory of these improvements and highlight the importance of tailoring post‐LVAD care to address modifiable factors and to provide targeted support for at‐risk subgroups.