PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Life0 citationsOpen Access

Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Extracorporeal Ultrafiltration Modalities in the Management of Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome with Diuretic Resistance

View Full Paper
LZLaura Elena Zamora-CervantesEVEnzo Vasquez-JimenezJRJosé Manuel Rodríguez-Chagolla

Key Result

Peritoneal dialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy offer hemodynamic advantages in acute cardiorenal syndrome, but the scarcity of comparative studies underscores the need for randomized trials.

Key Points

  • To investigate the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis versus extracorporeal ultrafiltration in managing acute cardiorenal syndrome with diuretic resistance.
  • Comparison of peritoneal dialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy.
  • Assessment of fluid removal efficacy and rehospitalization rates.
  • Examination of hemodynamic advantages and associated risks of each modality.
  • Non-pharmacological ultrafiltration therapies showed effectiveness in fluid removal.
  • Continuous renal replacement therapy has notable risks including infection and high costs.
  • Peritoneal dialysis demonstrated benefits in effective sodium removal without the need for anticoagulation.

Structured PICO

Could there be an advantage of a specific renal replacement modality beyond fluid removal in patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome and diuretic resistance?

P
Population
Patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome and diuretic resistance
I
Intervention
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT)

There is a scarcity of comparative studies between peritoneal dialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy in acute cardiorenal syndrome with diuretic resistance, highlighting the need for randomized trials.

Limitations

  • Scarcity of comparative studies
  • No evidence on diuretic resistance

Abstract

In cardiorenal Syndrome (CRS), diuretic resistance is frequent and congestion predominates in acute forms. In refractory cases, non-pharmacological ultrafiltration therapies have shown effectiveness on fluid removal, improved diuresis, and reduced rehospitalizations. However, the choice of modality remains individualized and resource-dependent. Both continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) offer hemodynamic advantages, but CRRT carries risks such as infection, bleeding, and high cost. PD has also demonstrated benefits in acute settings, providing effective sodium removal, and no need for anticoagulation, though it is not considered first-line therapy. There are few studies comparing different renal replacement therapies (RRT) in patients with acute CRS and there is no evidence on diuretic resistance. So, the question arises: could there be an advantage of a modality beyond fluid removal? The scarcity of comparative studies underscores the need for randomized trials that move beyond the cardiocentric perspective and include patients at risk of diuretic resistance.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zamora-Cervantes et al. (2026) conducted a review in Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome with Diuretic Resistance. Peritoneal dialysis vs. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) was evaluated. Peritoneal dialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy offer hemodynamic advantages in acute cardiorenal syndrome, but the scarcity of comparative studies underscores the need for randomized trials.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6984343ff1d9ada3c1fb2394https://doi.org/10.3390/life16020249
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper