We appreciated reading the article by Khan et al, 1 evaluating the impact of intraventricular fibrinolysis (IVF) for intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). This article represents an interesting update from our previous meta-analysis.2 Notably, the authors underlined several differences between the 2 studies and noted some mistakes in our data extraction.We think that the identified discrepancies are mainly related to differences in the inclusion criteria. In contrast to Khan et al, 1 we excluded from our analysis patients presenting IVH because of other causes than spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH; ie, aneurysm, arteriovenous malformation, moyamoya disease…). In fact, we consider that IVH caused by deep ICH represents a unique pathological entity which should be differentiated from IVH after aneurismal rupture. Substantial evidence supports our point of view.First, clinical outcome after IVH secondary to deep ICH is different from IVH after aneurismal rupture. We performed an additional metaanalysis including the studies reported by Khan et al 1 and considered separately patients presenting IVH caused by deep ICH and those presenting IVH secondary to aneurismal rupture (we also excluded the article by Naff et al, 3 which we consider not eligible because the treatment allocation of the 8 patients used as a control group is unclear). Mortality rates were 23.7% and 13.1%, respectively, underlying the differences existing between IVH from these 2 pathogeneses.Second, concerning chronic hydrocephalus requiring shunting, the impact of IVF is also different according to the IVH athogenesis. In spontaneous ICH, IVF seems to have no benefit, with an odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.38; n=321). In contrast, in aneurysmal IVH, IVF seems to be benefic, with an odds ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.79; n=152). These subgroup analyses underline the fact that the impact of IVF may be different in regard to IVH pathogenesis.Third, recent evidence supports difference in pathophysiology between IVH because of ICH and IVH because of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), especially in regard to glymphatic impairment. The glymphatic system is a paravascular pathway devoted to metabolite clearance of the brain. 4 We recently demonstrated that this system is severely impaired after SAH, but not after ICH, and may trigger toxic metabolite accumulation within the brain parenchyma.5 Interestingly, we showed in an experimental SAH model that IVF restores the function of the glymphatic system. Therefore, in addition to macroscopic clot removal, IVF may restore glymphatic circulation in patients presenting IVH secondary to SAH. This potential beneficial effect is specific to SAH.In conclusion, IVH pathogenesis might significantly influence IVF impact. Therefore, patients having IVH related to spontaneous ICH and those having IVH related to aneurysm rupture should be studied separately, as performed in the CLEAR-III (Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Ph...