Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42678455›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026

Pressure-controlled active CSF irrigation versus non-pressure-controlled management following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of DCI and safety outcomes.

Ramtin Pourahmad, Mehrad Zare, Pouria Delbari, Kimia Rasouli, Mohammad Mehdi Hajiabadi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ramtin Pourahmad *Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehrad Zare *Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Pouria DelbariFaculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Kimia RasouliFaculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Mohammad Mehdi HajiabadiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. m.hajiabadi@outlook.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4346-3657

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delayed cerebral infarction (DCI) is a major cause of poor outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and is closely associated with intracranial blood burden. Pressure-controlled cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) irrigation techniques have been developed to actively accelerate blood clearance; however, their overall clinical effectiveness and safety profile have not been comprehensively evaluated in a comparative framework. Accordingly, we performed a systematic synthesis of the available evidence focusing on both clinical efficacy and treatment-related safety outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to evaluate both safety and efficacy. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 15, 2025. Studies comparing pressure-controlled active CSF irrigation techniques (including stereotactic ventriculocisternostomy, cisterno-ventricular catheter systems, ventriculo-lumbar irrigation, and lumbo-lumbar irrigation) with non-pressure-controlled management were included. The primary radiographic outcome was delayed cerebral infarction. Secondary outcomes captured both additional efficacy endpoints and safety, including symptomatic vasospasm, in-hospital mortality, functional outcome, and procedure-related complications. Arm-specific outcome prevalences were pooled descriptively using random-effects models, while comparative treatment effects were synthesized as odds ratios from direct within-study comparisons between pressure-controlled and non-pressure-controlled management. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2. Nine studies comprising 2,033 patients were included; most evidence was observational and at serious risk of confounding. In direct within-study comparative meta-analyses, pressure-controlled irrigation was associated with lower odds of delayed cerebral infarction (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.50), symptomatic vasospasm (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.88), and imaging-defined vasospasm (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.48). No statistically significant associations were observed for angiographic vasospasm (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17), in-hospital mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83-1.69), shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.48-2.22), or infectious complications (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46-1.21). Catheter-related hemorrhage was rare in descriptive intervention-group data, but adequate comparative analysis was unavailable. Comparative functional outcome analysis was not feasible because mRS data were insufficiently reported in non-pressure-controlled comparator arms. Direct comparative analyses showed no observed heterogeneity (I² = 0%), whereas descriptive prevalence estimates were substantially heterogeneous. Pressure-controlled active CSF irrigation was associated with lower odds of delayed cerebral infarction and symptomatic and imaging-defined vasospasm after aSAH. Effects on angiographic vasospasm, mortality, safety outcomes, and functional recovery remain uncertain. Interpretation is limited by predominantly nonrandomized evidence and residual confounding. Multicenter randomized trials are required to confirm comparative effectiveness and identify appropriate patients.

Indexed as

Cerebral InfarctionSubarachnoid HemorrhageTherapeutic IrrigationHumansTreatment OutcomeVasospasm, IntracranialAneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhageCerebral vasospasmCerebrospinal fluid irrigationDelayed cerebral infarctionIntracranial pressure monitoringSymptomatic vasospasmSystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.