ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Risk-Adjusted Excess Length of Stay for Patients With Heart Failure Across Facilities: A Large US Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital length of stay (LOS) among patients with heart failure (HF) is relevant for patients, payers, and hospitals. Risk adjustment of LOS supports fair and equitable reimbursement for facilities that may experience more complex cases, oftentimes serving marginalized populations. We aimed to assess factors contributing to HF LOS, building on commonly available information across a wide range of facilities.
methodsA Fine and Gray Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to assess hospital LOS using a large US cohort of 89 621 patients with HF hospitalized during the fourth quarter of 2023, controlling for censoring among patients leaving against medical advice and for competing risks of in-hospital all-cause mortality. In our primary aim, we risk-adjusted HF LOS for patient-level sociodemographic and clinical episode characteristics as well as facility-level factors. Model performance was assessed via concordance statistics across derivation and validation cohorts, and risk adjustments were reported as subdistribution hazard ratios. As a secondary aim, we explored facility-level risk-adjusted idiosyncratic differences in LOS.
resultsSociodemographic, clinical episode, and facility-level characteristics can explain differences in hospital LOS among patients with HF, with most variables being statistically significant. The model exhibited moderate performance with similar results across the derivation (C=0.686 [95% CI, 0.682-0.691]) and validation (C=0.691 [95% CI, 0.686-0.695]) cohorts.
conclusionsExcess LOS can be attributed to multiple characteristics at the sociodemographic, clinical episode, and facility levels. We demonstrate a HF LOS risk-adjustment method that does not rely on, though can be expanded with, extensive patient clinical information, supporting more equitable assessments of facility performance and reimbursement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.