ArticleClinical transplantation2023
Multicenter study of universal prophylaxis versus pre-emptive therapy for patients at intermediate risk (R+) for CMV following heart transplantation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ-specific differences in the epidemiology of cytomegalovirus infections in high-risk (cytomegalovirus donor seropositive, recipient seronegative) solid organ transplant recipients with prolonged follow-up: A 10-year experience.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2026Article
- Cytomegalovirus infections in thoracic organ transplant recipients: Updates on prevention, treatment, and immune monitoring.JHLT open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHeart transplant (HT) recipients with prior exposure to cytomegalovirus (CMV R+) are considered intermediate risk for CMV-related complications. Consensus guidelines allow for either universal prophylaxis (UP) or preemptive therapy (PET) (serial CMV testing) approaches to CMV prevention in such patients. Whether an optimal approach to mitigate CMV related risks exists in this setting remains uncertain. We therefore assessed the utility of PET as compared to UP in CMV R+ HT recipients.
methodsRetrospective analysis of all CMV R+ HT recipients from 6 U.S. centers between 2010 and 2018 was performed. The primary outcome was the development of CMV DNAemia or end-organ disease resulting in the initiation/escalation of anti-CMV therapy. The secondary outcome was CMV-related hospitalization. Additional outcomes included incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) ≥ grade 2R, death, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and leukopenia.
resultsOf 563 CMV R+ HT recipients, 344 (61.1%) received UP. PET was associated with increased risk for the primary (adjusted HR 3.95, 95% CI: 2.65-5.88, p < .001) and secondary (adjusted HR 3.19, 95% CI: 1.47-6.94, p = .004) outcomes, and with increased ACR ≥ grade 2R (PET 59.4% vs. UP 34.4%, p < .001). Incidence of detectable CAV was similar at 1 year (PET 8.2% vs. UP 9.5%, p = .698). UP was associated with increased incidence of leukopenia within 6 months post-HT (PET 34.7% vs. UP 43.6%, p = .036).
conclusionThe use of a PET CMV prophylaxis strategy in intermediate risk HT recipients associated with increased risk of CMV infection and CMV-related hospitalization, and may associate with worse post-HT graft outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.