Background: In the US, native kidney biopsies are usually inpatient procedures. We developed an outpatient biopsy protocol for low-risk patients and assessed its safety and efficacy. Methods: Patients with an SBP <140 mm Hg and a BMI ≤35 who were not taking anticoagulants, ASA and NSAIDS in the preceding week were included. Biopsies were performed under ultrasound guidance using a 15-gauge needle that changed to a 14-gauge needle during the study. Patients were discharged after 5 h of observation if there were no signs of bleeding. Complications were carefully recorded. Results: Between November 2008 and April 2011, 105 patients underwent outpatient renal biopsies. A 15-gauge needle was used in 43 patients (group A) while a 14-gauge needle was used in 62 (group B). A median of 25 (range 4–64) glomeruli were obtained in group A versus 39 (range 0–107) in group B (p < 0.001). Complications requiring admission for observation occurred in 7 patients (16%) in group A versus 5 patients (8%) in group B (p = 0.22). One patient in group B had bleeding requiring intervention, while all other complications were minor. Nine complications occurred during the observation period, while 3 patients presented >48 h after biopsy. The mean cost per patient for each outpatient biopsy was USD 976 versus USD 5,489 for inpatients. Conclusions: In a selected low-risk population, outpatient renal biopsy is safe with low complication rates and results in significant cost savings relative to elective inpatient biopsies. The use of a 14-gauge biopsy needle resulted in a greater yield of glomeruli without increased complications.

1.
Buonocore E, Skipper GJ: Steerable real-time sonographically guided needle biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981;136:387–392.
2.
Donovan KL, Thomas DM, Wheeler DC, Macdougall IC, Williams JD: Experience with a new method for percutaneous renal biopsy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1991;6:731–733.
3.
Burstein DM, Korbet SM, Schwartz MM: The use of the automatic core biopsy system in percutaneous renal biopsies: a comparative study. Am J Kidney Dis 1993;22:545–552.
4.
Whittier WL, Korbet SM: Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:142–147.
5.
Whittier WL, Korbet SM: Renal biopsy: update. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2004;13:661–665.
6.
Waldo B, Korbet SM, Freimanis MG, Lewis EJ: The value of post-biopsy ultrasound in predicting complications after percutaneous renal biopsy of native kidneys. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:2433–2439.
7.
Stratta P, Canavese C, Marengo M, Mesiano P, Besso L, Quaglia M, et al: Risk management of renal biopsy: 1387 cases over 30 years in a single centre. Eur J Clin Invest 2007;37:954–963.
8.
Marwah DS, Korbet SM: Timing of complications in percutaneous renal biopsy: what is the optimal period of observation? Am J Kidney Dis 1996;28:47–52.
9.
Al-Hweish AK, Abdul-Rehaman IS: Outpatient percutaneous renal biopsy in adult patients. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2007;18:541–546.
10.
Maya ID, Allon M: Percutaneous renal biopsy: outpatient observation without hospitalization is safe. Semin Dial 2009;22:458–461.
11.
Margaryan A, Perazella MA, Mahnensmith RL, Abu-Alfa AK: Experience with outpatient computed tomographic-guided renal biopsy. Clin Nephrol 2010;74:440–445.
12.
Carrington CP, Williams A, Griffiths DF, Riley SG, Donovan KL: Adult day-case renal biopsy: a single-centre experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011;26:1559–1563.
13.
Khajehdehi P, Junaid SM, Salinas-Madrigal L, Schmitz PG, Bastani B: Percutaneous renal biopsy in the 1990s: safety, value, and implications for early hospital discharge. Am J Kidney Dis 1999;34:92–97.
14.
Nicholson ML, Wheatley TJ, Doughman TM, White SA, Morgan JD, Veitch PS, et al: A prospective randomized trial of three different sizes of core-cutting needle for renal transplant biopsy. Kidney Int 2000;58:390–395.
15.
Arora K, Punia RS, D’Cruz S: Comparison of diagnostic quality of kidney biopsy obtained using 16G and 18G needles in patients with diffuse renal disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2012;23:88–92.
16.
Racusen LC, Colvin RB, Solez K, Mihatsch MJ, et al: Antibody-mediated rejection criteria – an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 2003;3:708–714.
17.
Hussain F, Mallik M, Marks SD, Watson AR: British Association of Paediatric Nephrology. Renal biopsies in children: current practice and audit of outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:485–489.
18.
Manno C, Strippoli GF, Arnesano L, Bonifati C, Campobasso N, Gesualdo L, et al: Predictors of bleeding complications in percutaneous ultrasound-guided renal biopsy. Kidney Int 2004;66:1570–1577.
19.
Maya ID, Maddela P, Barker J, Allon M: Percutaneous renal biopsy: comparison of blind and real-time ultrasound-guided technique. Semin Dial 2007;20:355–358.
20.
Shidham GB, Siddiqi N, Beres JA, Logan B, Nagaraja HN, Shidham SG, et al: Clinical risk factors associated with bleeding after native kidney biopsy. Nephrology (Carlton) 2005;10:305–310.
21.
Kolb LG, Velosa JA, Bergstralh EJ, Offord KP: Percutaneous renal allograft biopsy. A comparison of two needle types and analysis of risk factors. Transplantation 1994;57:1742–1746.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.