Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42395680›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of nephrology2026

Slow continuous ultrafiltration and prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy: Tailoring renal replacement therapy in intensive care unit.

Guido Gembillo, Matteo Floris, Lorenzo Lo Cicero, Giuseppe Spadaro, Luca Soraci, Domenico Santoro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

Guido GembilloUnit of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, AOU "G. Martino", University of Messina, Messina 98125, Italy. guidogembillo@live.it.
Matteo FlorisDepartment of Nephrology and Dialysis, G. Brotzu Hospital, Cagliari 09121, Sardegna, Italy.
Lorenzo Lo CiceroUnit of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, AOU "G. Martino", University of Messina, Messina 98125, Italy.
Giuseppe SpadaroUnit of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, AOU "G. Martino", University of Messina, Messina 98125, Italy.
Luca SoraciUnit of Geriatric Medicine, Italian National Research Center on Aging (IRCCS INRCA), Cosenza 87100, Calabria, Italy.
Domenico SantoroUnit of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, AOU "G. Martino", University of Messina, Messina 98125, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute kidney injury complicates the clinical course of nearly half of all critically ill patients admitted to intensive care, conferring a three- to five-fold elevation in mortality risk. The management of these patients has evolved considerably beyond standardized protocols toward individualized therapeutic strategies. Within this paradigm shift, two modalities warrant particular attention: Slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF) and prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT). SCUF operates through isolated fluid extraction at rates between 100 mL and 500 mL per hour, targeting patients whose preserved kidney function nonetheless fails to manage severe volume overload. The clinical experience with SCUF reveals a complex picture, while certain patient populations, particularly those receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or battling refractory cardiac failure, have shown encouraging results with shortened intensive care stays, equally robust cohorts have experienced concerning progression rates to complete renal replacement therapy and mortality approaching or exceeding 50%. The distinction appears to hinge on meticulous patient selection, with systolic perfusion pressure emerging as a pivotal hemodynamic threshold. PIRRT extends conventional intermittent therapy from the traditional 3-4 hours window to sessions lasting 6-12 hours. Multiple investigations support that this approach achieves comparable mortality and renal recovery outcomes to continuous modalities while reducing costs, facilitating patient mobilization, and decreasing nursing requirements. Current guideline recommendations increasingly favor restrictive, patient-centered approaches over rigid algorithmic initiation. Accumulating evidence supports ultrafiltration rates of 1-1.5 mL/kg/hour, adjusted dynamically according to hemodynamic tolerance and disease trajectory. Yet despite these refinements in our understanding of optimal therapy delivery, fundamental questions persist: Which patients derive maximal benefit from alternative modalities? When should these therapies be initiated or withdrawn, and how can we predict individual treatment response? This review synthesizes current evidence to establish practical decision frameworks for implementing SCUF and PIRRT in critically ill populations, examining clinical indications, safety parameters, fluid removal strategies, and outcome determinants. Our objective is to advance renal replacement therapy from a standardized intervention toward precision nephrology for high-acuity patients.

Indexed as

Acute kidney injuryChronic kidney diseaseDiuretic resistanceHeart failureIntensive care unitProlonged intermittent renal replacement therapyRenal failureSlow continuous ultrafiltration

Identifiers

PMID42395680
PMCPMC13324488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.