The evolution of performing a kidney biopsy: a single center experience comparing native and transplant kidney biopsies performed by interventional radiologists and nephrologists

Background: Kidney biopsy is the most vital tool guiding a nephrologist in diagnosis and treatment of kidney disease. Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of kidney biopsies being performed by interventional radiologists. The goal of our study was to compare the adequacy and complication rates between kidney biopsies performed by interventional radiology versus nephrology. METHODS : We performed a single center retrospective analysis of a total of all kidney biopsies performed at our Institution between 2015 and 2021. All biopsies were performed using real-time ultrasound. Patients were monitored for four hours post biopsy and repeat ultrasound or hemoglobin checks were done if clinically indicated. The entire cohort was divided into two groups (Interventional radiology (IR) vs nephrology) based on who performed the biopsy. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, blood counts, blood pressure, adequacy of the biopsy specimen and complication rates were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare complication rates (microscopic hematuria, gross hematuria and need for blood transfusion combined) between these two groups, controlling for covariates of interest. ANCOVA (analysis of variance, controlling for covariates) was used to compare differences in biopsy adequacy (number of glomeruli per biopsy procedure) between the groups.

Results: 446 kidney biopsies were performed in the study period (229 native and 147 transplant kidney biopsies) of which 324 were performed by IR and 122 by nephrologist. There was a significantly greater number of core samples obtained by IR (mean = 3.59, std.dev. = 1.49) compared to nephrology (mean = 2.47, std.dev = 0.79), p < 0.0001. IR used 18-gauge biopsy needles while nephrologist exclusively used 16-gauge needles. IR used moderate sedation (95.99%) or general anesthesia (1.85%) for the procedures more often than nephrology, which used them only in 0.82% and 0.82% of cases respectively (p < 0.0001). Trainees (residents or fellows) participated in the biopsy procedures more often in nephrology compared to IR (97.4% versus 69.04%, p < 0.0001). The most frequent complication identified was microscopic hematuria which occurred in 6.8% of biopsies. For native biopsies only, there was no significant difference in likelihood of complication between groups, after adjustment for covariates of interest (OR = 1.01, C.I. = (0.42, 2.41), p = 0.99). For native biopsies only, there was no significant difference in mean number of glomeruli obtained per biopsy procedure between groups, after adjustment for covariates of interest (F(1,251) = 0.40, p = 0.53).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in the adequacy or complication rates between kidney biopsies performed by IR or nephrology. This conclusion may indicate that kidney biopsies can be performed safely with adequate results either by IR or nephrologists depending on each institution's resources and expertise.