Prophylaxis versus preemptive anti-cytomegalovirus approach for prevention of allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection may influence the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Prophylactic or preemptive administration of anti-CMV agents effectively prevents acute CMV manifestations. However, studies comparing allograft-related outcomes between these anti-CMV approaches are lacking. Herein we report a longitudinal observational study comparing CAV development between prophylactic and preemptive approaches.

METHODS: The 1-year change in maximal intimal thickening (MIT) assessed by intravascular ultrasound at 1 and 12 months after heart transplantation (the major surrogate for late survival) was compared in groups of patients routinely assigned to a preemptive strategy (from November 2004 to October 2005; n = 21) or receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis (from November 2005 to October 2006; n = 19). CMV infection was monitored with pp65 antigenemia.

RESULTS: The 1-year increase in MIT was significantly lower in patients receiving prophylaxis compared with those managed preemptively (0.15 +/- 0.17 vs 0.31 +/- 0.20 mm; p = 0.01). Prophylaxed recipients presented less frequently with MIT change > or =0.3 mm (p = 0.03) and > or =0.5 mm (p = 0.10) than those managed preemptively. Prophylaxis was also associated with later onset of CMV infection (p = 0.01), lower peak CMV detection (p < 0.01) and reduced incidence of CMV disease/syndrome (p = 0.04). After adjusting for metabolic risk factors and other possible confounders, prophylaxis remained independently associated with lower risk for MIT change > or =0.3 mm (odds ratio = 0.09, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.93; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: Universal prophylaxis was associated with delayed onset of CMV infection, lower viral burden, reduced CMV disease/syndrome and less intimal thickening, as compared with a preemptive anti-CMV approach. Randomized studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of prophylaxis vs a preemptive approach in heart transplant recipients.