Key result
Aggressive CMV prophylaxis in heart transplant recipients reduced the relative risk of acute rejection graded >=3A compared with standard prophylaxis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.26-0.96; P=0.03).
Why the study?
Does aggressive CMV prophylaxis reduce CMV infection, acute rejection, and cardiac allograft vascular disease in heart transplant recipients?
Population
66 heart transplant recipients
Comparison
Aggressive CMV prophylaxis administered for… vs Standard prophylaxis
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Aggressive CMV prophylaxis was associated with lower rejection risk after heart transplant; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Cohort (n=66)
Does aggressive CMV prophylaxis reduce CMV infection, acute rejection, and cardiac allograft vascular disease in heart transplant recipients?
Relative Risk: 0.55 (95% CI 0.26–0.96)
p-value: p=0.03
Prolonged aggressive CMV prophylaxis reduces subclinical CMV infection, acute rejection, and progression of cardiac allograft vascular disease in heart transplant recipients.
Potena et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Heart transplant (n=66). Aggressive CMV prophylaxis vs. Standard prophylaxis (intravenous ganciclovir for 4 weeks) was evaluated on Acute rejection graded >=3A (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26-0.96, p=0.03). Aggressive CMV prophylaxis in heart transplant recipients reduced the relative risk of acute rejection graded >=3A compared with standard prophylaxis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.26-0.96; P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: