Proteomics for heart failure risk stratification: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome with persistently high mortality. High-throughput proteomic technologies offer new opportunities to improve HF risk stratification, but their contribution remains to be clearly defined. We aimed to systematically review prognostic studies using high-throughput proteomics to identify protein signatures associated with HF mortality. METHODS: We searched four databases and two clinical trial registries for articles published from 2012 to 2023. HF proteomics studies measuring high numbers of proteins using aptamer or antibody-based affinity platforms on human plasma or serum with outcomes of all-cause or cardiovascular death were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third reviewer resolved conflicts. We assessed the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Exposure tool. RESULTS: Out of 5131 unique articles identified, nine articles were included in the review. The nine studies were observational; three used the aptamer platform, and six used the antibody platform. We found considerable heterogeneity across studies in measurement panels, HF definitions, ejection fraction categorization, follow-up duration, and outcome definitions, and a lack of risk estimates for most protein associations. Hence, we proceeded with a systematic review rather than a meta-analysis. In two comparable aptamer studies in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, 21 proteins were identified in common for the association with all-cause death. Among these, one protein, WAP four-disulfide core domain protein 2 was also reported in an antibody study on HFrEF and for the association with CV death. We proposed standardized reporting criteria to facilitate the interpretation of future studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review of nine studies evaluating the association of proteomics with mortality in HF, we identified a limited number of proteins common across several studies. Heterogeneity across studies compromised drawing broad inferences, underscoring the importance of standardized approaches to reporting.