Background: Percutaneous renal biopsy of native kidneys (PRB) has been an integral part of the practice of nephrology. However, over the past 30 years, PRB has transitioned from a procedure performed only by nephrologists to interventional radiologists (IRs). We surveyed practicing nephrologists completing training in our program to determine the clinical practice patterns of PRB. Methods: The 78 fellows completing the nephrology program at Rush University Medical Center from June 1984 through June 2017 were successfully contacted and surveyed regarding their opinion on adequacy of their training and whether they performed PRB in practice and if not or no longer, why. To evaluate for differences in the performance of PRB over time, a comparison of 4 periods of fellowship completion (i.e., 1984–1990, 1991–2000, 2001–2010, 2011–2017) was performed. Results: All 78 nephrologists felt they had been adequately trained to perform PRB. PRB was performed by 45 (58%) nephrologists post-fellowship, but a significant decline was observed over the 4 periods of time from 1984 to 2017 (100 vs. 86 vs. 52 vs. 20%, p < 0.0001). The primary reason that 33 nephrologists did not perform PRB was that it was too time consuming and IR was available to perform PRB. Of the 71 nephrologists still in practice only 12 (17%) continue to perform PRB. A greater proportion of nephrologists completing training from 1984–1990 continue to perform PRB relative to those trained after 1990. The universal reason that nephrologists were no longer performing PRB was again an issue of time and the fact that IRs were available to perform PRB. Conclusion: We find that there has been a significant transition over time in the performance of PRB by a nephrologist to IR. The major reason for this is the time burden associated with PRB and the availability of IRs.
Histological Diagnosis Determines Complications of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy: A Single-Center Experience in 353 Patients
