Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Introduction: Patients with heart failure may undergo mechanical assistive device placement as a bridge to heart transplantation or for destination therapy. Thereafter, patients may be discharged home or admitted to inpatient rehabilitation.

Research Question: We hypothesized that within 8 months, patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation (IR) would have fewer readmissions and greater exercise capacity compared to patients discharged home following left ventricular assistive device (LVAD) placement.

Aim: The readmission rates and exercise capacity of patients admitted to (IR) were compared to those discharged home within 8 months of (LVAD) placement.

Methods: Readmission rates, impairment percentages (IP) (determined by Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care scores) and walking distance after (LVAD) placement between March 1^st, 2020 to November 30^th, 2022 were collected via retrospective chart review at Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Adults with heart failure and heart assistive device (ICD10 code Z95.811), discharged home or admitted to the Christine E. Lynn Rehabilitation Center for at least 7 consecutive days within 8 months were included. Patients who were noncompliant, expired, transferred, or unable to ambulate were excluded. 24 patients were admitted to rehab, and 16 were discharged home. Statistical significance was denoted at the 0.05 level using the Mann-Whitney U Test.

Results: There was a higher proportion of females in the rehab group (45.8%) and males in the no rehab group (93.8%) (p=0.02). The groups were otherwise comparable.

Average (IP) at hospital discharge was higher for the rehab group (51.79%, SD 17.65) compared to the no rehab group (14.20%, SD 18.93) (p<.001). Average post-(LVAD) walking distance (feet) at hospital discharge was higher for the no rehab group (305, SD 206.72) compared to the rehab group (127.73, SD 132.11) (p=0.005). Within 8 months, there was no significant difference between groups.

Average readmissions were higher for the no rehab group (1.375, SD 0.957) compared to the rehab group (0.958, SD 1.49) (p= 0.059), but was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Patients with greater (IP) and shorter walking distances were admitted to rehab and became functionally comparable to the no rehab group by 8 months. Though readmission rates were lower for the rehab group, this was not statistically significant. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the impact of (IR) following (LVAD) placement.