AIM: To analyze differences in patients’ clinical course, we compared two regimes of either preemptive therapy or prophylaxis after liver transplantation.METHODS: This retrospective study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the University of Leipzig. Cytomegalovirus(CMV) prophylaxis with valganciclovir hydrochloride for liver transplant recipients was replaced by a preemptive strategy in October 2009. We retrospectively compared liver transplant recipients 2 years before and after October 2009. During the first period, all patients received valganciclovir daily. During the second period all patients included in the analysis were treated following a preemptive strategy. Outcomes included one year survival and therapeutic intervention due to CMV viremia or infection.RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2010 n = 226 patients underwent liver transplantation in our center. n = 55 patients were D~+/R~- high risk recipients and were excluded from further analysis. A further 43 patients had to be excluded since CMV prophylaxis/preemptive strategy was not followed although there was no clinical reason for the deviation. Of the remaining 128 patients whose data were analyzed, 60 receivedprophylaxis and 68 were treated following a preemptive strategy. The difference in overall mortality was not significant, nor was it significant for one-year mortality where it was 10%(95%CI: 8%-28%, P = 0.31) higher for the preemptive group. No significant differences in blood count abnormalities or the incidence of sepsis and infections were observed other than CMV. In total, 19 patients(14.7%) received ganciclovir due to CMV viremia and/or infections. Patients who were treated according to the preemptive algorithm had a significantly higher rate risk of therapeutic intervention with ganciclovir n = 16(23.5%) vs n = 3(4.9%), P = 0.003).CONCLUSION: These data suggest that CMV prophylaxis is superior to a preemptive strategy in patients undergoing liver transplantation.