Back

Rural-Urban Differences in Hospitalization Outcomes Among Young Adults (18-45) With Heart Failure, 2016-2022

Sherr, H.; Benyoucef, W.; Waken, R.; Joynt Maddox, K. E.; Solomon, E. R.; Hoang, V.-A.; Hammond, G.

2026-08-25 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.08.21.26361079 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Hospitalizations and mortality due to heart failure (HF) are rising in rural areas. However, inpatient outcomes for young adults with HF are not well understood. We aimed to compare in-hospital mortality, advanced procedure utilization, length of stay, and total charges among rural and urban HF patients ages 18-45. Methods We analyzed hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2022), categorizing discharges as rural (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS] 5-6), small and medium metropolitan (NCHS 3-4), and urban (NCHS 1-2). Generalized estimating equations were used to model outcomes and adjust for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Outcomes are reported as adjusted rate (aIRRs) or risk ratios (aRRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Among 79,258 HF hospitalizations among young adults, 45,075 and 10,722 were for patients from urban and rural areas, respectively. Rural patients had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (1.6% vs. 1.2%; aIRR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.56, p = 0.043), advanced cardiac procedure utilization (15.0% vs. 14.8%; aIRR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.28, p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (aIRR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.14, p = 0.003). Small and medium metropolitan residents had similar outcomes to urban residents. In interaction analyses, the association between rural-urban residence and mortality differed by race (pint = 0.003) and payer type (pint < 0.001). Conclusions Young adults in rural areas may be prone to poor outcomes following hospitalization for HF. Strategies to identify rural adults at risk for HF and provide affordable and timely care may improve disparities.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.