Evidence Hub

Gut microbiome-derived metabolites as prognostic biomarkers in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

D. Koeckerling, Rohin K. Reddy, S. Guivala, Timothy Woodhead, James P. Howard, Yousif Ahmad, A. Rangrez, Norbert Frey

European Journal of Heart Failure, 2026

17,715 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence implicates gut dysbiosis in heart failure (HF) pathogenesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises prognostic associations of microbial metabolites in HF.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched through February 2026 for studies investigating associations between gut microbial metabolites and HF outcomes. Study characteristics, baseline covariates and outcomes were extracted in duplicate. The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Random-effects models were applied to pool hazard ratios. Subgroup analyses stratified cohorts by HF phenotype and aetiology; meta-regression explored potential effect modifiers. This study was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42025631114).

RESULTS

Twenty studies comprising 17,715 patients were included in meta-analysis; six studies were synthesised narratively. Median follow-up was 31.7 months. Elevated trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) was associated with all-cause mortality in the overall population (HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.42-2.08, p=0.0002, I2 37.3%) and across HF phenotypes (HRHFrEF 2.17, 95%CI 1.68-2.81, I2 0%; HRHFpEF 1.55, 95%CI 0.92-2.61, I2 0%). Higher TMAO was also associated with MACE (HR 1.60, 95%CI 1.44-1.78, p<0.0001, I2 0%), consistent across HF phenotypes (HRHFrEF 1.43, 95%CI 1.15-1.78, I2 0%; HRHFpEF 1.76, 95%CI 1.21-2.55, I2 31.6%). Elevated phenylacetylglutamine (PAGln) was associated with mortality (HR 1.60, 95%CI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 17,715 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free