Key result
Nine HF biomarkers accurately identify heart failure, but biomarker pairs add no diagnostic benefit.
Why the study?
The diagnostic value of single and combined plasma biomarkers for heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum needed evaluation in a population-based cohort.
Does a multi-biomarker panel improve diagnostic discrimination of heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum compared to single biomarkers in a population-based cohort?
Cohort (n=578)
Yes
Does a multi-biomarker panel improve diagnostic discrimination of heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum compared to single biomarkers in a population-based cohort?
While nine individual plasma biomarkers demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.90-0.97) for distinguishing HFrEF and HFpEF from controls, combining biomarkers in pairs did not improve diagnostic discrimination over the best single biomarker.
Supports single-marker HF testing and cautions against routine multi-biomarker diagnostic panels; leaves open whether complex multimarker algorithms add incremental value in prospective cohorts.
We conducted a cohort study to evaluate the diagnostic value of heart failure (HF) biomarkers across the ejection fraction spectrum. Using electronic health record data from Tayside and Fife regions of Scotland (1993-2021), we linked echocardiograms with plasma samples for biomarker analysis. The study included 156 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 236 patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and 186 controls without HF. All biomarkers were significantly elevated in patients with HF compared to controls. Patients with HFrEF had higher hs-TnT, NT-proBNP, and ANG-2 concentrations than those with HFpEF. All nine biomarkers demonstrated strong diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing HF from controls (AUC ≥0.90). However, no two-biomarker pair significantly improved discrimination over its best constituent marker in a majority of splits. This population-based study demonstrated significant diagnostic value of biomarkers for patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. All biomarkers discriminated HF from controls, with held-out AUCs from 0.90 to 0.97. Although each of these biomarkers reflects distinct pathophysiological aspects of HF that could potentially provide complementary diagnostic information, combination of biomarkers in our analysis did not improve discrimination over the best single biomarker. Further work is needed in integrating multi-biomarker panels to enhance patient selection efficiency in clinical trials, improve HF surveillance, and facilitate early diagnosis across healthcare systems, particularly for HFpEF
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oo et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart Failure (HFrEF and HFpEF) (n=578). Nine heart failure plasma biomarkers (including hs-TnT, NT-proBNP, and ANG-2) vs. Controls without heart failure / best single constituent biomarker was evaluated on Diagnostic discrimination of heart failure (HFrEF and HFpEF) from controls (AUC 0.90-0.97). Nine HF biomarkers discriminated HFrEF and HFpEF from controls with strong accuracy (held-out AUCs 0.90-0.97), though two-biomarker pairs did not improve discrimination over the best single marker.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: