Marianna Eleonora Labate
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Marianna Eleonora Labate has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Alberto Ponziani
Cardiology Unit, Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero- Universitaria di Bologna, Italy (E. Biagini, S.L., G. Sena, A. Ponziani, G. Saturi)
1 shared publication - Aldostefano Porcari
Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Cardiomyopathies, Cardiovascular Department, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Giuliano-Isontina (ASUGI), University of Trieste , Trieste
1 shared publication - Alessia Argirò
Department of Experimental & Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Italy (I.O., N.M., A.A.).
1 shared publication - Annamaria Del Franco
Cardiomyopathy Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
1 shared publication - Beatrice Musumeci
Cardiology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University, 00189 Rome, Italy
1 shared publication - Camillo Autore
Cardiology Unit, Clinical and Molecular Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 March 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Circulation: Heart Failure
- Vol. 19 (3) , e012337
Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Restriction Versus Systolic Dysfunction in Patients With Transthyretin and Light Chain Cardiac Amyloidosis
BACKGROUND: The tenet of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) as a paradigm of heart failure with restrictive ventricular physiology and preserved systolic function has come under scrutiny. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction versus restriction in a large real-world cohort with CA, assessed at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 540 TTR (transthyretin)-CA and 280 AL (light chain)-CA. Patients were divided into 3 LV phenotypes: (1) preserved LV function: LV ejection fraction >40% associated with grade I diastolic dysfunction; (2) restriction: LV ejection fraction >40% associated with grade II/III diastolic dysfunction; (3) systolic dysfunction: LV ejection fraction ≤40% irrespective of diastolic function. We analyzed the progression from preserved LV function towards the other 2 LV phenotypes and survival free from the composite end point of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation. RESULTS: In TTR-CA, the prevalence of preserved LV function was 32.0%, restriction was 56.1%, and systolic dysfunction was 11.9%. Among patients with preserved LV function, at the last evaluation, the conversion rate to restriction was 16.3% and to systolic dysfunction was 1.8%. The 3-year freedom from the composite end point was 75%, 61%, and 44%, respectively. In AL-CA, the prevalence of preserved LV function was 32.9%, restriction was 58.6%, and systolic dysfunction was 8.5%. Among patients with preserved LV function, at the last evaluation, the conversion rate to restriction was 12.9%, and to systolic dysfunction was none. The 3-year freedom from the composite end point was 46%, 32%, and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Restriction was the most common presenting phenotype, while preserved LV function represented approximately one-third. The rate of progression from preserved LV function towards restriction was high, whereas it was limited towards systolic dysfunction. Although patients with preserved LV function presented the best event-free survival, considering all-cause mortality and heart transplantation, compared with restriction or systolic dysfunction, these phenotypes are not independent predictors of this composite end point.
- 1 March 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Circulation: Heart Failure
- Vol. 19 (3) , e012337
Open AccessPrevalence and Prognostic Significance of Restriction Versus Systolic Dysfunction in Patients With Transthyretin and Light Chain Cardiac Amyloidosis
BACKGROUND: The tenet of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) as a paradigm of heart failure with restrictive ventricular physiology and preserved systolic function has come under scrutiny. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction versus restriction in a large real-world cohort with CA, assessed at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 540 TTR (transthyretin)-CA and 280 AL (light chain)-CA. Patients were divided into 3 LV phenotypes: (1) preserved LV function: LV ejection fraction >40% associated with grade I diastolic dysfunction; (2) restriction: LV ejection fraction >40% associated with grade II/III diastolic dysfunction; (3) systolic dysfunction: LV ejection fraction ≤40% irrespective of diastolic function. We analyzed the progression from preserved LV function towards the other 2 LV phenotypes and survival free from the composite end point of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation. RESULTS: In TTR-CA, the prevalence of preserved LV function was 32.0%, restriction was 56.1%, and systolic dysfunction was 11.9%. Among patients with preserved LV function, at the last evaluation, the conversion rate to restriction was 16.3% and to systolic dysfunction was 1.8%. The 3-year freedom from the composite end point was 75%, 61%, and 44%, respectively. In AL-CA, the prevalence of preserved LV function was 32.9%, restriction was 58.6%, and systolic dysfunction was 8.5%. Among patients with preserved LV function, at the last evaluation, the conversion rate to restriction was 12.9%, and to systolic dysfunction was none. The 3-year freedom from the composite end point was 46%, 32%, and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Restriction was the most common presenting phenotype, while preserved LV function represented approximately one-third. The rate of progression from preserved LV function towards restriction was high, whereas it was limited towards systolic dysfunction. Although patients with preserved LV function presented the best event-free survival, considering all-cause mortality and heart transplantation, compared with restriction or systolic dysfunction, these phenotypes are not independent predictors of this composite end point.