<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Zheng H</submitter><funding>Science and Technology Innovation Capacity Improvement Project of University</funding><funding>Chongqing Science and Health Joint Medical Research Project</funding><pagination>116</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10935911</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>19(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>The aim of the present systematic review was to determine whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) contributes to a lower rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before May 7, 2023. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023441392). The primary outcome was permanent SCI. Secondary outcomes were temporary SCI and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. The data were presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 1008 studies were screened, of which 34 studies with 2749 patients were included in the present analysis. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 8.71 (range, 5-12). The pooled rate of permanent SCI with prophylactic CSFD was identical to that without prophylactic CSFD (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0; P = 0.445). No statistically significant difference was found between the rates of permanent SCI with routine vs. selective prophylactic CSFD (P = 0.596). The pooled rate of temporary SCI was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.00-1.0%). The pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (P = 0.525) in patients with prophylactic CSFD (4.0, 95% CI 2.0-6.0) or without prophylactic CSFD (5.0, 95% CI 2.0-7.0).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>The systematic review has shown that prophylactic CSFD was not associated with a lower rate of permanent SCI and 30-day or in-hospital mortality after TEVAR for TBAD.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of cardiothoracic surgery</journal><pubmed_title>Systematic review of the effect of cerebrospinal fluid drainage on outcomes after endovascular type B aortic dissection repair.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10935911</pmcid><funding_grant_id>2023MSXM110</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>2019XYY13</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Zheng H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lin D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yu S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yan C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cheng W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cheng Y</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Systematic review of the effect of cerebrospinal fluid drainage on outcomes after endovascular type B aortic dissection repair.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>The aim of the present systematic review was to determine whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) contributes to a lower rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before May 7, 2023. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023441392). The primary outcome was permanent SCI. Secondary outcomes were temporary SCI and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. The data were presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 1008 studies were screened, of which 34 studies with 2749 patients were included in the present analysis. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 8.71 (range, 5-12). The pooled rate of permanent SCI with prophylactic CSFD was identical to that without prophylactic CSFD (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0; P = 0.445). No statistically significant difference was found between the rates of permanent SCI with routine vs. selective prophylactic CSFD (P = 0.596). The pooled rate of temporary SCI was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.00-1.0%). The pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (P = 0.525) in patients with prophylactic CSFD (4.0, 95% CI 2.0-6.0) or without prophylactic CSFD (5.0, 95% CI 2.0-7.0).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>The systematic review has shown that prophylactic CSFD was not associated with a lower rate of permanent SCI and 30-day or in-hospital mortality after TEVAR for TBAD.</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Mar</publication><modification>2025-05-18T12:53:55.174Z</modification><creation>2025-05-18T12:53:55.174Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10935911</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38475763</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s13019-024-02603-3</doi></cross_references></HashMap>