Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791192
Transjugular Random Renal Biopsy: How We Do It
Biopsy is the gold standard in the diagnosis of diffuse kidney disease.[1] Percutaneous random renal biopsy is a safe and effective method to obtain renal tissue for the diagnosis of diffuse kidney disease.[2] Patients with diffuse kidney disease and multiple comorbidities (morbid obesity, thrombocytopenia, coagulopathies, high blood pressure) may be at higher risk of having a bleeding complication during or after a percutaneous random renal biopsy.[1] If a renal biopsy is imperative to decide a therapeutic approach in high-risk patients, a transjugular renal biopsy (TJRB) may be a safer option.[3]
Halimi et al developed a bleeding risk score for patients with an indication for random renal biopsy.[4] At our institution, we recommend TJRB in patients with a calculated bleeding risk score higher than 15. The purpose of this article is to describe patient selection criteria and procedure techniques for TJRB at our center.
Publication History
Article published online:
07 November 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Schnuelle P. Renal biopsy for diagnosis in kidney disease: indication, technique, and safety. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (19) 6424
- 2 Uppot RN, Harisinghani MG, Gervais DA. Imaging-guided percutaneous renal biopsy: rationale and approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (06) 1443-1449
- 3 Mal F, Meyrier A, Callard P. et al. Transjugular renal biopsy. Lancet 1990; 335 (8704): 1512-1513
- 4 Halimi JM, Gatault P, Longuet H. et al. Major bleeding of transjugular native kidney biopsies. A French nationwide cohort study. Kidney Int Rep 2021; 6 (10) 2594-2603
- 5 Abbott KC, Musio FM, Chung EM, Lomis NN, Lane JD, Yuan CM. Transjugular renal biopsy in high-risk patients: an American case series. BMC Nephrol 2002; 3: 5
- 6 Misra S, Gyamlani G, Swaminathan S. et al. Safety and diagnostic yield of transjugular renal biopsy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19 (04) 546-551