Background Severe acute pancreatitis is associated with high rates of mortality and life-threatening complications. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CWH) has been used in some centers to reduce mortality and avoid local or systemic complications, however its efficiency and safety is uncertain. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of CVVH in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis; to compare the effects of different CVVH techniques; and to evaluate the optimal time for delivery of CVVH. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (2019, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 13 September 2019), Embase (1974 to 13 September 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 13 September 2019). Selection criteria We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CVVH versus no CVVH in participants with severe acute pancreatitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of CVVH and different schedules for CVVH in participants with severe acute pancreatitis. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included two studies, involving a total of 94 participants, in the review. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration versus no intervention We included one study in which 64 participants with severe acute pancreatitis were randomized to undergo CVVH (32 participants) or no intervention (32 participants). There were no deaths in either group (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), length of hospital stay, total hospital cost, and quality of life were not reported in the study. One type of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration versus a different type of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration We included one study in which 30 participants with severe acute pancreatitis were randomized to undergo high-volume CVVH (15 participants) or standard CVVH (15 participants). High-volume CVVH may lead to little or no difference in in-hospital mortality rates (20.0% in the high-volume CVVH group versus 33.3% in the standard CVVH group; risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 2.07; 30 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether high-volume hemofiltration reduces rates of adverse events (13.3% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, total hospital cost, and quality of life were not reported in the study. Authors' conclusions The quality of the current evidence is very low or low. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse. It is unclear whether CVVH has any effect on mortality or complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. It is also unclear whether high-volume CVVH is superior, equivalent or inferior to standard CVVH in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.