Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) represents a relatively common finding among preoperative patients, being a significant cause of delays and costs for health institutions, mainly due to the perceived risk of hematogenous spread and surgical site infection (SSI) as it leads to surgical reprogramming and antibiotic treatment [1,2] .However, recent evidence has been showing that in most of the scenarios ASB do not increase the risk of any infectious complications by itself, as in the case of joint replacement [3,4] .However, in the cardiovascular surgery context there is few evidence about the impact of ASB in the SSI rate, this last has a reported incidence of 1%-10% and confers affected individuals a high risk of mortality, which can reach up to 25% in cases of deep SSI [5,6] .Because of this, there is a substantial need of evaluating the potential role of ASB, in order to create optimal recommendations for the SSI prevention in these patients.This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the benefit of treating ASB prior to cardiovascular surgery regarding the risk of SSI.The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for meta-analyses and systematic reviews and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Statement.The literature search was performed by two authors using the databases Medline, Embase, PubMed, EBSCOHost, SciELO, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the following terms: asymptomatic bacteriuria; bacteriuria; nitrites; pyuria; asymptomatic leukocyturia; urine analysis; urinalysis; cardiac surgery; heart surgery; cardiovascular surgery; cardiothoracic surgery.Eligible studies corresponded to randomized controlled trials, cohorts and case-control studies that evaluated the benefit of treating ASB in patients taken to cardiovascular surgery.Also, the studies included had to be written in in English, Spanish or Portuguese, published after January 1 st of 1970 and had to be available on full text.The reviewers evaluated the title at first, excluding those without any correlation with the objective of the study, then the abstracts were reviewed, removing the duplicates, finally the suitable articles were selected for full text review.For outcomes with