Skip to main content

Fluid removal tolerance during the de-escalation phase: is preload unresponsiveness the best guiding candidate?

The Original Article was published on 24 March 2023


We read with great interest the recent article by Monnet et al. [1] extensively reviewing the various facets of personalized fluid therapy during septic shock. Subsequently, we would like to discuss the management of fluid removal guided by preload responsiveness, specifically regarding the net ultrafiltration (UFnet) set-up in critically-ill patients with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

A four-phase therapeutic management of shock states was first described by Vincent et al. [2] ten years ago. This management strategy starts with a “salvage” phase that includes lifesaving measures and is followed by an “optimization” phase, which targets the normalization of end-organ perfusion. The latter is performed by means of: i) a preload-responsiveness-guided fluid administration; ii) a mean arterial pressure-guided administration of vasopressors; iii) a cardiac index-guided administration of inotropes. Then, the “stabilization” phase focuses on organ support and the minimization of complications. Finally, the “de-escalation” phase consists in fluid removal if a negative fluid balance is not spontaneously achieved, to counteract the side effects inherent to the initial resuscitation and fluid creep. This strategy, however, appears risky since a discrepancy between the timing and/or intensity of fluid removal rate and the vascular refilling rate may lead to iatrogenic hypovolemia.

Patients with acute kidney injury requiring CRRT display a marked and frequent fluid overload, the peak being observed at day 5 after diagnosis and associated with a worse prognosis [3]. In such patients with inadequate diuresis, the achievement of a negative fluid balance requires a UFnet that allows a real-time fluid removal and which is easily and precisely adjustable. The setting of the UFnet rate is thus particularly illustrative of the complexity of fluid removal management during de-escalation. Several observational studies have shown that a moderate UFnet between 1.01 and 1.75 mL/kg/h is associated with a better prognosis following a J-shaped curve [4]. This suggests that when UFnet is under 1.01 mL/kg/h, the treatment of fluid accumulation is insufficient to counteract the side effects of fluid [5], while a more aggressive strategy (UFnet rate > 1.75 mL/kg/h) may be even more deleterious [6], inducing hypovolemia-related organ damage.

Monnet et al. argue that the absence of preload responsiveness allows the safe initiation of fluid removal, while the apparition of fluid responsiveness during fluid removal is a red flag urging to stop it. Preload responsiveness was reported to predict the occurrence of hypotension during intermittent hemodialysis with a high UFnet rate of 10–15 mL/kg/h [7]. To the best of our knowledge, it is not possible to predict the vascular refilling rate. If it may exceed 10 mL/kg/h in chronic hemodialysis patients [8], the combination of glycocalyx degradation, impaired lymphatic function, and interstitial space architectural modification in critically-ill patients probably lowers considerably this vascular refilling rate [9]. We previously found that passive leg raising does not accurately predict cardiac index decrease nor hypotension following a fluid removal challenge of 500 mL UFnet over one hour in patients undergoing CRRT [10]. We observed the same results with calibrated abdominal compression to test preload responsiveness in children before a diuretics-induced fluid removal of 5 mL/kg over 2 h [11]. In our opinion, preload unresponsiveness better predicts the delay between the initiation of a UFnet at a higher rate rather than that of vascular refilling and the occurrence of hypovolemia. The extrapolation of preload responsiveness to guide fluid removal for resolving interstitial edema in patients without intravascular hypervolemia is questionable. In this situation, we believe that the adequacy between vascular refilling and fluid removal rates is the cornerstone of hemodynamic stability. Moreover, limiting fluid removal to patients with preload unresponsiveness may seriously limit the eligible population.

In this context, what are the other safety criteria that could be used? Arterial hypotension is multifactorial in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy and may be delayed during hypovolemia. Legrand et al. [12] suggested to keep cardiac output constant. Unfortunately, we do not know which cardiac output should be targeted during the de-escalation phase. Indeed, these patients do not experience hypoperfusion and are not necessarily candidates to cardiac output optimization. Variations in cardiac output have no clear prognostic value, and a spontaneous cardiac output decrease can be related to the resolution of a hyperdynamic state in the setting of an overall improvement. It may also not be sensitive enough to detect cutaneous perfusion impairments during fluid removal [13]. As suggested during the optimization phase, targeting circulatory sufficiency (i.e. the normalization of tissue perfusion) [14] seems pertinent. Such a strategy, together with the application of a moderate and continuous UFnet, is feasible and leads to a more negative fluid balance at day 5 than usual practices [15]. Nevertheless, further studies are required to demonstrate the relevance of this approach on patient-centered outcomes.

Fluid removal tolerance is not the only question raised by the concept of de-escalation: the triggers to initiate fluid removal, the targets, and the medication to be used, especially in patients without CRRT, are several of the factors that require elucidation before confirming the relevance of this intellectual concept.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.


  1. Monnet X, Lai C, Teboul JL. How I personalize fluid therapy in septic shock? Crit Care Lond Engl. 2023;27(1):123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vincent JL, De Backer D. Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garzotto F, Ostermann M, Martín-Langerwerf D, Sánchez-Sánchez M, Teng J, Robert R, et al. The dose response multicentre investigation on fluid assessment (DoReMIFA) in critically ill patients. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2016;20(1):196.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Murugan R, Bellomo R, Palevsky P, Kellum JA. Ultrafiltration in critically ill patients treated with kidney replacement therapy. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;17:262–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Murugan R, Balakumar V, Kerti SJ, Priyanka P, Chang CCH, Clermont G, et al. Net ultrafiltration intensity and mortality in critically ill patients with fluid overload. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2018;22(1):223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Murugan R, Kerti SJ, Chang CCH, Gallagher M, Clermont G, Palevsky PM, et al. Association of net ultrafiltration rate with mortality among critically ill adults with acute kidney injury receiving continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration: a secondary analysis of the Randomized evaluation of normal vs augmented level (RENAL) of Renal replacement therapy trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(6):e195418.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Monnet X, Cipriani F, Camous L, Sentenac P, Dres M, Krastinova E, et al. The passive leg raising test to guide fluid removal in critically ill patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitsides N, Pietribiasi M, Waniewski J, Brenchley P, Mitra S. Transcapillary refilling rate and its determinants during haemodialysis with standard and high ultrafiltration rates. Am J Nephrol. 2019;50(2):133–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prowle J, Mehta R. Fluid balance management during continuous renal replacement therapy. Semin Dial. 2021;34(6):440–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacquet-Lagrèze M, Ruste M, Fornier W, Jacquemet PL, Schweizer R, Fellahi JL. Refilling and preload dependence failed to predict cardiac index decrease during fluid removal with continuous renal replacement therapy. J Nephrol. 2023;36(1):187–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacquet-Lagrèze M, Acker A, Hentzen J, Didier C, De Lamer S, Chardonnal L, et al. Preload dependence fails to predict hemodynamic instability during a fluid removal challenge in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2022;23(4):296–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Legrand M, Soussi S, Depret F. Cardiac output and CVP monitoring… to guide fluid removal. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2018;22(1):89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mongkolpun W, Bakos P, Vincent JL, Creteur J. Monitoring skin blood flow to rapidly identify alterations in tissue perfusion during fluid removal using continuous veno-venous hemofiltration in patients with circulatory shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinsky MR, Cecconi M, Chew MS, De Backer D, Douglas I, Edwards M, et al. Effective hemodynamic monitoring. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):294.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruste M, Sghaier R, Chesnel D, Didier L, Fellahi JL, Jacquet-Lagrèze M. Perfusion-based deresuscitation during continuous renal replacement therapy: a before-after pilot study (The early dry Cohort). J Crit Care. 2022;72:154169.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable


This comment received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Study concept and design: Not applicable. Acquisition of data: Not applicable. Interpretation of data: Not applicable. Drafting of manuscript: MR, RS, MJL, JLF. Statistical analysis: Not applicable. Study supervision: Not applicable. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: MR, RS, MJL, JLF. Final approval of the version to be published: MR, RS, MJL, JLF. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: MR, RS, MJL, JLF. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Ruste.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest related to the study to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruste, M., Schweizer, R., Fellahi, JL. et al. Fluid removal tolerance during the de-escalation phase: is preload unresponsiveness the best guiding candidate?. Crit Care 27, 154 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: