Sex‐specific cardiovascular protein levels and their link with clinical outcome in heart failure
ESC Heart Failure, 2023
de Bakker M., Loncq de Jong M., Petersen T., de Lange I., Akkerhuis K., Umans V., Rizopoulos D., Boersma E., Brugts J., Kardys I.
| Disease area | Application area | Sample type | Products |
|---|---|---|---|
CVD | Pathophysiology | Plasma |  Olink Target 96 |
Abstract
Aims
This study aims to provide insight into sex‐specific cardiovascular protein profiles and their associations with adverse outcomes, which may contribute to a better understanding of heart failure (HF) pathophysiology and the optimal use of circulating proteins for prognostication in women and men.
Methods and results
In 250 stable patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we performed trimonthly blood sampling (median follow‐up: 26 [17–30] months). We selected all baseline samples and two samples closest to the primary endpoint (PEP; composite of cardiovascular death, heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device implantation, and HF hospitalization) or one sample closest to censoring and applied the Olink Cardiovascular III panel. We used linear regression to study sex‐based differences in baseline levels and joint models to study differences in the prognostic value of serially measured proteins. In 66 women and 184 men (mean age of 66 and 67 years, respectively), 21% and 28% reached the PEP, respectively. Mean baseline levels of fatty acid‐binding protein 4, secretoglobin family 3A member 2, paraoxonase 3, and trefoil factor 3 were higher in women (Pinteraction: 0.001, 0.007, 0.018, and 0.049, respectively), while matrix metalloproteinase‐3, interleukin 1 receptor‐like 1, and myoglobin were higher in men (Pinteraction: <0.001, 0.001, and 0.049, respectively), independent of clinical characteristics. No significant differences between sexes were observed in the longitudinal associations of proteins with the PEP. Only peptidoglycan recognition protein 1 showed a suggestive interaction with sex for the primary outcome (Pinteraction = 0.028), without multiple testing correction, and was more strongly associated with adverse outcome in women {hazard ratio [HR] 3.03 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.42 to 6.68], P = 0.008} compared with men [HR 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66), P = 0.347].
Conclusions
Although multiple cardiovascular‐related proteins show sex differences at baseline, temporal associations with the adverse outcome do not differ between women and men with HFrEF.