BackgroundThe safety and adequacy are established for the native percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) but no prospective studies exist that directly compare these with transplant PRB.MethodsFrom 1995 to 2015, 1705 adults underwent percutaneous native [native renal biopsy (NRB)] or transplant renal biopsy (TRB) by the Nephrology service. Real-time ultrasound and automated biopsy needles (NRB, 14 or 16 gauge; TRB, 16 gauge) were used. Patients were observed for 24 h (NRB) or 8 h (TRB) post-procedure. Adequacy was defined as tissue required for diagnosis plus glomerular yield. Complications were defined as those resulting in the need for an intervention, such as surgery, interventional radiologic procedure, readmission, blood transfusion and death. Data were collected prospectively in all biopsies.ResultsAt the time of biopsy, NRB patients were younger (mean ± SD, 47 ± 17 versus 50 ± 14 years, P < 0.0001) and more often female (62 versus 48%, P < 0.0001) compared with TRB. A fellow supervised by an attending performed the procedure in 91% of NRB compared with 63% of TRB (P < 0.0001). TRB patients were more hypertensive [systolic blood pressure (SBP) 140 ± 22 versus 133 ± 18 mmHg, P < 0.0001] and had a higher serum creatinine (3.1 ± 1.8 versus 2.3 ± 2.2 mg/dL, P < 0.0001), activated partial thromboplastin time (28 ± 4.3 versus 27 ± 5 s, P < 0.0001) as well as lower hemoglobin (Hgb) (11.2 ± 1.8 versus 11.7 ± 2.1 g/dL, P < 0.0001) compared with NRB. Adequate tissue for diagnosis was obtained in > 99% of NRB and TRB (P = 0.71). Compared with TRB, NRB had a greater drop in Hgb after the biopsy (0.97 ± 1.1 versus 0.73 ± 1.3 g/dL, P < 0.0001), a higher complication rate (6.5 versus 3.9%, P = 0.02) and higher transfusion rate (5.2 versus 3.3%, P = 0.045). There was one death in each group attributed to the biopsy.ConclusionsAlthough death is equally rare, the complication rate is higher in NRB compared with TRB despite TRB having more of the traditional risk factors for bleeding. Differences in technique, operator (fellow or attending) or needle gauge may explain this variability.
Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has long been utilized to manage a variety of immune-mediated diseases. The basic principle relies on removal of circulating pathogenic substances from the bloodstream. Methods of plasma separation include centrifuge (cTPE) and membrane (mTPE). Although mTPE has existed for a few decades, recent advances in developing highly permeable filters that are compatible with currently existing dialysis machines has opened a new frontier. Published data in the area of technical and clinical experience with mTPE is lacking. We report our single center experience of 998 inpatient mTPE treatments performed in 237 patients at a large tertiary care academic center. The most common treatment indication was neurologic. We found a very low incidence of patient-reported complications. Filter clotting without the use of anticoagulation occurred in 7.7% of treatments. Laboratory parameters that significantly changed during the course of therapy included serum potassium, platelet count, and partial thromboplastin time. We found that mTPE can be safely and efficiently performed as an alternative to cTPE, and suggest an individualized approach when prescribing this therapy. K E Y W O R D Santicoagulation, complications, membrane, plasmapheresis, therapeutic plasma exchange
Therapeutic plasma exchange has long been utilized to manage a variety of immune-mediated diseases. The underlying principle is the removal of a circulating pathogenic substance from the plasma and substitution with a replacement fluid. Different methodologies of plasma separation include the use of centrifuge, which relies on the variation in the specific gravity of blood components, and membrane-based separation, which relies on particle size. With advancements in technology and clinical insight into disease pathophysiology, membrane technology has become more biocompatible, safer, and more adaptable to conventional hemodialysis and hemofiltration machines. As such, nephrologists, who are familiar with management of extracorporeal blood purification systems, are increasingly involved with membrane-based plasma separation. This review aims to highlight the technical aspects of membrane-based separation, review the prescription for therapy, and draw comparisons with the centrifuge-based technique when applicable.
BackgroundPercutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) of native kidneys (NKs) to better understand and treat acute kidney injury (AKI) is being advocated, but little is known about the risk of complications.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of PRB of NKs in 955 adults from 1991 to 2015 at an academic medical center with real-time ultrasound and automated biopsy needles. Patients undergoing PRB for evaluation of AKI (n = 160) were compared with 795 patients biopsied for other reasons (not-AKI) for postbiopsy complications [need for transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), an interventional radiologic or surgical procedure, readmission or death].ResultsPatients biopsied for AKI were older (58 ± 16 versus 44 ± 16 years; P < 0.0001), with a higher serum creatinine (SCr) (4.5 ± 2.7 versus 1.8 ± 1.6 mg/dL; P < 0.0001) and lower hemoglobin (Hgb) (10.4 ± 1.7 versus 12.1 ± 2.1; P < 0.0001) and a greater proportion had an abnormal bleeding time (12.5% versus 7.4%, P 0.04), partial thromboplastin time (15.2% versus 5.3%, P < 0.0001) and/or prothrombin time (27.0% versus 12.8%; P < 0.0001) compared with not-AKI patients. Complications post-PRB were significantly greater in patients biopsied for AKI {11.3% versus 6.7%; P=0.04; odds ratio [OR] 1.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–3.12]} with patients biopsied for AKI requiring more blood transfusions (10.0% versus 5.3%; P 0.02; OR 2.04 (95% CI 1.12–3.74)]. By multivariate analysis, baseline features predictive of a complication were increased SCr and decreased Hgb level, as well as female gender and increased systolic blood pressure.ConclusionPatients biopsied for evaluation of AKI are at greater risk of complications due to increased risk factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.