Objective The overall objective of this scoping review is to assess the extent of the literature related to the fluid management of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).

Introduction AKI is common in critically ill patients where fluid therapy is a mainstay of treatment. An association between fluid balance (FB) and adverse patient-centred outcomes in critically ill patients with AKI regardless of severity has been demonstrated. The evidence for the prospective intervention of FB and its impact on outcomes is unknown.

Inclusion criteria All studies investigating FB in patients with AKI admitted to an intensive care unit were included. Literature not related to FB in the critically ill patient with AKI population was excluded.

Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from January 1st, 2012, onwards. We included primary research studies, experimental and observational, recruiting adult participants admitted to an intensive care unit who had an AKI. We extracted data on study and patient characteristics, as well as FB, renal-based outcomes, and patient-centred outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for eligible studies and performed data extraction.

Results Of the 13,767 studies reviewed, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Two studies examined manipulation of fluid input, 18 studies assessed enhancing fluid removal, and two studies applied a restrictive fluid protocol. Sixteen studies examined patients receiving renal replacement therapy, five studies included non–renal replacement therapy patients, and one study included both. Current evidence is broad with varied approaches to managing fluid input and fluid removal. The studies did not demonstrate a consensus approach for any aspect of the fluid management of critically ill patients. There was a limited application of a restrictive fluid protocol with no conclusions possible.

Conclusions The current body of evidence for the management of FB in critically ill patients with AKI is limited in nature. The current quality of evidence is unable to guide current clinical practice. The key outcome of this review is to highlight areas for future research.