ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2026
CMV prevention in heart transplant recipients: Comparative analysis of preemptive and prophylactic strategies.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a significant concern during the post-transplant period in heart transplant recipients. Both preemptive and prophylactic approaches are used to prevent CMV infection. This study evaluates the impact of these CMV-targeted strategies on infection rates and graft outcomes, reflecting real-world clinical experience. Methods: The prophylactic strategy was defined as initiating antiviral therapy in all at-risk recipients immediately post-transplantation. The preemptive strategy involved administering antiviral treatment only to patients with detected viremia, identified through regular virological monitoring. Results: CMV infection occurred in 50.0% (30/60) of patients in the preemptive group and 20.8% (5/24) in the prophylactic group, representing a statistically significant reduction with prophylaxis (p=0.014). Graft rejection occurred in 16.7% (10/60) of preemptive patients and 20.8% (5/24) of prophylactic patients, with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.652). Conclusion: Prophylactic CMV prevention in heart transplant recipients significantly lowers the incidence of CMV infection compared to preemptive strategies. However, graft rejection rates did not differ significantly between the two approaches.
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.