BACKGROUND: Intraventricular hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage are associated with neuroinflammation and increased morbidity and mortality. Rapid clearance of blood from the cerebrospinal fluid space may mitigate neuroinflammatory cascades and improve clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of active cerebrospinal fluid exchange, including neuroendoscopic lavage and IRRAflow systems, versus external ventricular drainage in patients with intraventricular hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: The study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and thoroughly assessed databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science, up to September 18, 2025. Statistical analysis, both fixed-effect and random-effect model analyses, was performed by the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. In addition, the Cochran Q test was conducted to determine the statistical heterogeneity. In terms of low heterogeneity, the fixed-effect model is reported. RESULTS: This review included 7 studies with a total sample size of 834. Our analysis showed that active cerebrospinal fluid exchange was associated with significantly higher hematoma clearance (odds ratio, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.22–6.08]; P =0.015), better functional outcomes (odds ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.12–2.48]; P =0.012), lower shunt dependency (odds ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.10–0.50]; P <0.001), and reduced infection rates (odds ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.12–0.42]; P <0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that neuroendoscopic lavage was most effective for hematoma clearance, while IRRAflow reduced infection rates. Also, younger patients had better neurological recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Active cerebrospinal fluid exchange techniques demonstrated superior outcomes over external ventricular drainage in managing intraventricular hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage, particularly in clot resolution and neurological recovery. Large-scale trials are warranted.
Shared Genetic Risk Factors of Intracranial, Abdominal, and Thoracic Aneurysms
Background Intracranial aneurysms ( IAs ), abdominal aortic aneurysms ( AAAs ), and thoracic aortic aneurysms ( TAAs ) all have a familial predisposition. Given that aneurysm types are known to co‐occur, we hypothesized that there may be shared genetic risk factors for IAs , AAAs, and TAAs . Methods and Results We performed a mega‐analysis of 1000 Genomes Project‐imputed genome‐wide association study ( GWAS ) data of 4 previously published aneurysm cohorts: 2 IA cohorts (in total 1516 cases, 4305 controls), 1 AAA cohort (818 cases, 3004 controls), and 1 TAA cohort (760 cases, 2212 controls), and observed associations of 4 known IA , AAA , and/or TAA risk loci (9p21, 18q11, 15q21, and 2q33) with consistent effect directions in all 4 cohorts. We calculated polygenic scores based on IA ‐, AAA ‐, and TAA ‐associated SNP s and tested these scores for association to case‐control status in the other aneurysm cohorts; this revealed no shared polygenic effects. Similarly, linkage disequilibrium–score regression analyses did not show significant correlations between any pair of aneurysm subtypes. Last, we evaluated the evidence for 14 previously published aneurysm risk single‐nucleotide polymorphisms through collaboration in extended aneurysm cohorts, with a total of 6548 cases and 16 843 controls ( IA ) and 4391 cases and 37 904 controls ( AAA ), and found nominally significant associations for IA risk locus 18q11 near RBBP 8 to AAA (odds ratio [ OR ]=1.11; P =4.1×10 −5 ) and for TAA risk locus 15q21 near FBN 1 to AAA ( OR =1.07; P =1.1×10 −3 ). Conclusions Although there was no evidence for polygenic overlap between IAs , AAAs , and TAAs , we found nominally significant effects of two established risk loci for IAs and TAAs in AAAs . These two loci will require further replication.