Renal Biopsy: The Nephrologist’s Viewpoint

Chapter 2 - Renal Biopsy: The Nephrologist’s Viewpoint

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 March 2017

Anthony Alvarado and

Edited by

Xin Jin (Joseph) Zhou ,

Zoltan G. Laszik ,

Tibor Nadasdy and

Vivette D. D'Agati

Show author details

Xin Jin (Joseph) Zhou: Affiliation:
Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas
Zoltan G. Laszik: Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Tibor Nadasdy: Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Vivette D. D'Agati: Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York

Book contents

Get access

Type: Chapter
Information: Silva's Diagnostic Renal Pathology , pp. 57 - 68

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316613986 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gwyn, NB. Biopsies and the completion of certain surgical procedures. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1923; 13: 820–823.Google Scholar

Iversen, P, Brun, C. Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. The American Journal of Medicine 1951; 11: 324–330.Google Scholar

Kark, RM, Muehrcke, RC. Biopsy of kidney in prone position. Lancet 1954; 266: 1047–1049.Google Scholar

Appel, GB, Silva, FG, Pirani, CL, et al. Renal involvement in systemic lupud erythematosus (SLE): a study of 56 patients emphasizing histologic classification. Medicine 1978; 57: 371–410.Google Scholar

Appel, GB, Valeri, A. The course and treatment of lupus nephritis. Annual Review of Medicine 1994; 45: 525–537.Google Scholar

Paone, DB, Meyer, LE. The effect of biopsy on therapy in renal disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1981; 141: 1039–1041.CrossRef Google Scholar

Turner, MW, Hutchinson, TA, Barre, PE, et al. A prospective study on the impact of the renal biopsy in clinical management. Clinical Nephrology 1986; 26: 217–221.Google Scholar

Fogo, AB. Approach to renal biopsy. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2003; 42: 826–836.Google Scholar

Gerth, J, Busch, M, Illner, N, et al. Are tissue samples from two different anatomical areas of the kidney necessary for adequate diagnosis? Clinical Nephrology 2010; 74: 258–265.Google Scholar

Whittier, WL. Complications of the percutaneous kidney biopsy. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease 2012; 19: 179–187.Google Scholar

Sorof, JM, Vartanian, RK, Olson, JL, et al. Histopathological concordance of paired renal allograft biopsy cores. Effect on the diagnosis and management of acute rejection. Transplantation 1995; 60: 1215–1219.Google Scholar

Colvin, RB, Cohen, AH, Saiontz, C, et al. Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1997; 8: 1930–1941.Google Scholar

Walker, PD, Cavallo, T, Bonsib, SM, et al. Practice guidelines for the renal biopsy. Modern Pathology 2004; 17: 1555–1563.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Richards, NT, Darby, S, Howie, AJ, et al. Knowledge of renal histology alters patient management in over 40% of cases. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1994; 9: 1255–1259.Google Scholar

Hebert, LA, Parikh, S, Prosek, J, et al. Differential diagnosis of glomerular disease: a systematic and inclusive approach. American Journal of Nephrology 2013; 38: 253–266.Google Scholar

Szeto, CC, Lai, FM, To, KF, et al. The natural history of immunoglobulin a nephropathy among patients with hematuria and minimal proteinuria. The American Journal of Medicine 2001; 110: 434–437.Google Scholar

van Paassen, P, van Breda Vriesman, PJ, van Rie, H, et al. Signs and symptoms of thin basement membrane nephropathy: a prospective regional study on primary glomerular disease – the Limburg Renal Registry. Kidney International 2004; 66: 909–913.Google Scholar

Levey, AS, de Jong, PE, Coresh, J, et al. The definition, classification, and prognosis of chronic kidney disease: a KDIGO Controversies Conference report (vol 80, p. 17, 2011). Kidney International 2011; 80: 1000–1000.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jennette, JC, Falk, RJ. Glomerular clinicopathologic syndromes. In: Greenberg, A CA, Falk, RJ, Jennett, JC (ed). Primer on Kidney Diseases, 5th ed. National Kidney Foundation, 2009.Google Scholar

Haas, M, Spargo, BH, Wit, EJC, et al. Etiologies and outcome of acute renal insufficiency in older adults: a renal biopsy study of 259 cases. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2000; 35: 433–447.Google Scholar

Prakash, J, Tripathi, K, Usha, , Kumar, P. Clinical significance of kidney biopsy in acute renal failure (ARF). Indian Journal of Medical Sciences 1992; 46: 328–331.Google Scholar PubMed

Nelson, RG, Tuttle, KR. The new KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for diabetes and CKD. Blood Purification 2007; 25: 112–114.Google Scholar

Silva, FG. Specialty Conference Renal Pathology. 2006.Google Scholar

Sharma, SG, Bomback, AS, Radhakrishnan, J, et al. The modern spectrum of renal biopsy findings in patients with diabetes. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2013; 8: 1718–1724.Google Scholar

Mazzucco, G, Bertani, T, Fortunato, M, et al. Different patterns of renal damage in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicentric study on 393 biopsies. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2002; 39: 713–720.Google Scholar

Dhaun, N, Bellamy, CO, Cattran, DC, et al. Utility of renal biopsy in the clinical management of renal disease. Kidney International 2014; 85: 1039–1048.Google Scholar

Moutzouris, DA, Herlitz, L, Appel, GB, et al. Renal biopsy in the very elderly. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2009; 4: 1073–1082.Google Scholar

Al-Awwa, IA, Hariharan, S, First, MR. Importance of allograft biopsy in renal transplant recipients: correlation between clinical and histological diagnosis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1998; 31: S15–18.Google Scholar

Matas, AJ, Tellis, VA, Sablay, L, et al. The value of needle renal allograft biopsy. III. A prospective study. Surgery 1985; 98: 922–926.Google Scholar PubMed

Pascual, M, Vallhonrat, H, Cosimi, AB, et al. The clinical usefulness of the renal allograft biopsy in the cyclosporine era: a prospective study. Transplantation 1999; 67: 737–741.Google Scholar

Port, FK, Bragg-Gresham, JL, Metzger, RA, et al. Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: an approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1281–1286.Google Scholar

Olsen, S, Burdick, JF, Keown, PA, et al. Primary acute renal failure (“acute tubular necrosis”) in the transplanted kidney: morphology and pathogenesis. Medicine 1989; 68: 173–187.Google Scholar

Moers, C, Pirenne, J, Paul, A, et al. Machine perfusion or cold storage in deceased-donor kidney transplantation. The New England Journal of Medicine 2012; 366: 770–771.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Remuzzi, G, Grinyo, J, Ruggenenti, P, et al. Early experience with dual kidney transplantation in adults using expanded donor criteria. Double Kidney Transplant Group (DKG). Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1999; 10: 2591–2598.Google Scholar

Anglicheau, D, Loupy, A, Lefaucheur, C, et al. A simple clinico-histopathological composite scoring system is highly predictive of graft outcomes in marginal donors. American Journal of Transplantation 2008; 8: 2325–2334.Google Scholar

Woestenburg, AT, Verpooten, GA, Ysebaert, DK, et al. Fibrous intimal thickening at implantation adversely affects long-term kidney allograft function. Transplantation 2009; 87: 72–78.Google Scholar

Mancilla, E, Avila-Casado, C, Uribe-Uribe, N, et al. Time-zero renal biopsy in living kidney transplantation: a valuable opportunity to correlate predonation clinical data with histological abnormalities. Transplantation 2008; 86: 1684–1688.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Solez, K, Colvin, RB, Racusen, LC, et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. American Journal of Transplantation 2008; 8: 753–760.Google Scholar

Racusen, LC, Solez, K, Colvin, RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney International 1999; 55: 713–723.Google Scholar

Nankivell, BJ, Chapman, JR. The significance of subclinical rejection and the value of protocol biopsies. American Journal of Transplantation 2006; 6: 2006–2012.Google Scholar

Rush, D. Protocol transplant biopsies: an underutilized tool in kidney transplantation. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2006; 1: 138–143.Google Scholar

Health and Public Policy Committee. American College of Physicians. Clinical competence in percutaneous renal biopsy. Annals of Internal Medicine 1988; 108: 301–303.Google Scholar

Carvajal, HF, Travis, LB, Srivastava, RN, et al. Percutaneous renal biopsy in children – an analysis of complications in 890 consecutive biopsies. Texas Reports on Biology and Medicine 1971; 29: 253–264.Google Scholar

White, RH. Observations on percutaneous renal biopsy in children. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1963; 38: 260–266.Google Scholar

Madaio, MP. Renal biopsy. Kidney International 1990; 38: 529–543.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mendelssohn, DC, Cole, EH. Outcomes of percutaneous kidney biopsy, including those of solitary native kidneys. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1995; 26: 580–585.Google Scholar

Schow, DA, Vinson, RK, Morrisseau, PM. Percutaneous renal biopsy of the solitary kidney: a contraindication? The Journal of Urology 1992; 147: 1235–1237.Google Scholar

Brun, C, Raaschou, F. Kidney biopsies. The American Journal of Medicine 1958; 24: 676–691.Google Scholar

Mal, F, Meyrier, A, Callard, P, et al. Transjugular renal biopsy. Lancet 1990; 335: 1512–1513.Google Scholar

Mal, F, Meyrier, A, Callard, P, et al. The diagnostic yield of transjugular renal biopsy. Experience in 200 cases. Kidney International 1992; 41: 445–449.Google Scholar

Sarabu, N, Maddukuri, G, Munikrishnappa, D, et al. Safety and efficacy of transjugular renal biopsy performed by interventional nephrologists. Seminars in Dialysis 2011; 24: 343–348.Google Scholar

Shetye, KR, Kavoussi, LR, Ramakumar, S, et al. Laparoscopic renal biopsy: a 9-year experience. BJU International 2003; 91: 817–820.Google Scholar

Eiro, M, Katoh, T, Watanabe, T. Risk factors for bleeding complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. Clinical and Experimental Nephrology 2005; 9: 40–45.Google Scholar

Shidham, GB, Siddiqi, N, Beres, JA, et al. Clinical risk factors associated with bleeding after native kidney biopsy. Nephrology 2005; 10: 305–310.Google Scholar

Douketis, JD. Perioperative anticoagulation management in patients who are receiving oral anticoagulant therapy: a practical guide for clinicians. Thrombosis Research 2002; 108: 3–13.Google Scholar

Douketis, JD, Spyropoulos, AC, Spencer, FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e326S–350S.Google Scholar

Burstein, DM, Korbet, SM, Schwartz, MM. The use of the automatic core biopsy system in percutaneous renal biopsies: a comparative study. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1993; 22: 545–552.Google Scholar

Wiseman, DA, Hawkins, R, Numerow, LM, et al. Percutaneous renal biopsy utilizing real time, ultrasonic guidance and a semiautomated biopsy device. Kidney International 1990; 38: 347–349.Google Scholar

Riehl, J, Maigatter, S, Kierdorf, H, et al. Percutaneous renal biopsy: comparison of manual and automated puncture techniques with native and transplanted kidneys. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1994; 9: 1568–1574.Google Scholar

McMahon, GM, McGovern, ME, Bijol, V, et al. Development of an outpatient native kidney biopsy service in low-risk patients: a multidisciplinary approach. American Journal of Nephrology 2012; 35: 321–326.Google Scholar

Nicholson, ML, Wheatley, TJ, Doughman, TM, et al. A prospective randomized trial of three different sizes of core-cutting needle for renal transplant biopsy. Kidney International 2000; 58: 390–395.Google Scholar

Chunduri, S, Whittier, WL, Korbet, SM. Adequacy and complication rates with 14- vs. 16-gauge automated needles in percutaneous renal biopsy of native kidneys. Seminars in Dialysis 2015; 28: E11–E14.Google Scholar

Mai, J, Yong, J, Dixson, H, et al. Is bigger better? A retrospective analysis of native renal biopsies with 16 Gauge versus 18 Gauge automatic needles. Nephrology 2013; 18: 525–530.Google Scholar

Mostbeck, GH, Wittich, GR, Derfler, K, et al. Optimal needle size for renal biopsy: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Radiology 1989; 173: 819–822.Google Scholar

Bataille, S, Jourde, N, Daniel, L, et al. Comparative safety and efficiency of five percutaneous kidney biopsy approaches of native kidneys: a multicenter study. American Journal of Nephrology 2012; 35: 387–393.Google Scholar

Bago-Horvath, Z, Kozakowski, N, Soleiman, A, et al. The cutting (w)edge – comparative evaluation of renal baseline biopsies obtained by two different methods. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2012; 27: 3241–3248.Google Scholar

Yushkov, Y, Dikman, S, Alvarez-Casas, J, et al. Optimized technique in needle biopsy protocol shown to be of greater sensitivity and accuracy compared to wedge biopsy. Transplantation Proceedings 2010; 42: 2493–2497.Google Scholar

Marwah, DS, Korbet, SM. Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy: what is the optimal period of observation? American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1996; 28: 47–52.Google Scholar

Lin, WC, Yang, Y, Wen, YK, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient renal biopsy: a retrospective study. Clinical Nephrology 2006; 66: 17–24.Google Scholar

Maya, ID, Allon, M. Percutaneous renal biopsy: outpatient observation without hospitalization is safe. Seminars in Dialysis 2009; 22: 458–461.Google Scholar

Simard-Meilleur, MC, Troyanov, S, Roy, L, et al. Risk factors and timing of native kidney biopsy complications. Nephron Extra 2014; 4: 42–49.Google Scholar

Burstein, DM, Schwartz, MM, Korbet, SM. Percutaneous renal biopsy with the use of real-time ultrasound. American Journal of Nephrology 1991; 11: 195–200.Google Scholar

Doyle, AJ, Gregory, MC, Terreros, DA. Percutaneous native renal biopsy: comparison of a 1.2-mm spring-driven system with a traditional 2-mm hand-driven system. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1994; 23: 498–503.Google Scholar

Lee, SM, King, J, Spargo, BH. Efficacy of percutaneous renal biopsy in obese patients under computerized tomographic guidance. Clinical Nephrology 1991; 35: 123–129.Google Scholar

Nyman, RS, Cappelen-Smith, J, al Suhaibani, H, et al. Yield and complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. A comparison between ultrasound-guided gun-biopsy and manual techniques in native and transplant kidneys. Acta Radiologica 1997; 38: 431–436.Google Scholar

Sateriale, M, Cronan, JJ, Savadler, LD. A 5-year experience with 307 CT-guided renal biopsies: results and complications. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 1991; 2: 401–407.Google Scholar

Altebarmakian, VK, Guthinger, WP, Yakub, YN, et al. Percutaneous kidney biopsies. Complications and their management. Urology 1981; 18: 118–122.Google Scholar

Kark, RM, Muehrcke, RC, Pollak, VE, et al. An analysis of five hundred percutaneous renal biopsies. Archives of Internal Medicine 1958; 101: 439–451.Google Scholar

Corapi, KM, Chen, JL, Balk, EM, et al. Bleeding complications of native kidney biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2012; 60: 62–73.Google Scholar

Whittier, WL, Korbet, SM. Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2004; 15: 142–147.Google Scholar

Alter, AJ, Zimmerman, S, Kirachaiwanich, C. Computerized tomographic assessment of retroperitoneal hemorrhage after percutaneous renal biopsy. Archives of Internal Medicine 1980; 140: 1323–1326.Google Scholar

Christensen, J, Lindequist, S, Knudsen, DU, et al. Ultrasound-guided renal biopsy with biopsy gun technique – efficacy and complications. Acta Radiologica 1995; 36: 276–279.Google Scholar

Ginsburg, JC, Fransman, SL, Singer, MA, et al. Use of computerized tomography to evaluate bleeding after renal biopsy. Nephron 1980; 26: 240–243.Google Scholar

Kim, D, Kim, H, Shin, G, et al. A randomized, prospective, comparative study of manual and automated renal biopsies. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1998; 32: 426–431.Google Scholar

Manno, C, Strippoli, GF, Arnesano, L, et al. Predictors of bleeding complications in percutaneous ultrasound-guided renal biopsy. Kidney International 2004; 66: 1570–1577.Google Scholar

Ralls, PW, Barakos, JA, Kaptein, EM, et al. Renal biopsy-related hemorrhage: frequency and comparison of CT and sonography. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 1987; 11: 1031–1034.Google Scholar

Waldo, B, Korbet, SM, Freimanis, MG, et al. The value of post-biopsy ultrasound in predicting complications after percutaneous renal biopsy of native kidneys. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2009; 24: 2433–2439.Google Scholar

McCune, TR, Stone, WJ, Breyer, JA. Page kidney: case report and review of the literature. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1991; 18: 593–599.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Katopodis, KP, Katsios, CG, Koliousi, EL, et al. Life-threatening hemorrhage from abdominal aorta following a percutaneous renal biopsy. Clinical Nephrology 2006; 65: 446–448.Google Scholar

Tondel, C, Vikse, BE, Bostad, L, et al. Safety and complications of percutaneous kidney biopsies in 715 children and 8573 adults in Norway 1988–2010. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2012; 7: 1591–1597.Google Scholar

Bennett, AR, Wiener, SN. Intrarenal arteriovenous fistula and aneurysm. A complication of percutaneous renal biopsy. The American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy, and Nuclear Medicine 1965; 95: 372–382.Google Scholar

Ekelund, L, Lindholm, T. Arteriovenous fistulae following percutaneous renal biopsy. Acta Radiologica: Diagnosis 1971; 11: 38–48.Google Scholar

Grau, JH, Gonick, P, Wilson, A. Post-biopsy intrarenal arteriovenous fistula. The Journal of Urology 1979; 122: 233–236.Google Scholar

Alcazar, R, de la Torre, M, Peces, R. Symptomatic intrarenal arteriovenous fistula detected 25 years after percutaneous renal biopsy. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1996; 11: 1346–1348.Google Scholar

Yang, CY, Lai, MY, Lu, CL, et al. Timing of Doppler examination for the detection of arteriovenous fistula after percutaneous renal biopsy. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 2008; 36: 377–380.Google Scholar

Huraib, S, Goldberg, H, Katz, A, et al. Percutaneous needle biopsy of the transplanted kidney: technique and complications. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1989; 14: 13–17.Google Scholar

Furness, PN, Philpott, CM, Chorbadjian, MT, et al. Protocol biopsy of the stable renal transplant: a multicenter study of methods and complication rates. Transplantation 2003; 76: 969–973.Google Scholar

Schwarz, A, Gwinner, W, Hiss, M, et al. Safety and adequacy of renal transplant protocol biopsies. American Journal of Transplantation 2005; 5: 1992–1996.Google Scholar

Furness, PN, Taub, N, Assmann, KJ, et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2003; 27: 805–810.Google Scholar

Alsuwaida, A, Husain, S, Alghonaim, M, et al. Strategy for second kidney biopsy in patients with lupus nephritis. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2012; 27: 1472–1478.Google Scholar

Alvarado, A, Malvar, A, Lococo, B, et al. The value of repeat kidney biopsy in quiescent Argentinian lupus nephritis patients. Lupus 2014; 23: 840–847.Google Scholar

Book contents

Chapter 2 - Renal Biopsy: The Nephrologist’s Viewpoint

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive