TY - JOUR
T1 - Percutaneous native renal biopsy adequacy
T2 - A successful interdepartmental quality improvement activity
AU - Geldenhuys, Laurette
AU - Nicholson, Peter
AU - Sinha, Namita
AU - Dini, Angela
AU - Doucette, Steve
AU - Alfaadhel, Talal
AU - Keough, Valerie
AU - West, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Geldenhuys et al.; licensee BioMed Central.
PY - 2015/3/13
Y1 - 2015/3/13
N2 - Background: An adequate renal biopsy is essential for diagnosis and treatment of medical renal disease. Objective: We evaluated two initiatives to improve adequacy of renal biopsy samples at our centre. Design: Retrospective determination of renal biopsy adequacy. Setting: Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre. Patients: Patients undergoing medical renal biopsies. Measurements: Renal biopsy adequacy. Methods: The first initiative was to restrict the performance of biopsies to a smaller group of radiologists and to include a comment on biopsy adequacy in every pathology report. The second initiative was to introduce on-site adequacy assessment by a medical laboratory technologist. Native renal and allograft biopsy adequacies were calculated for three periods: 1) baseline, October 2005 to September 2006; 2) after implementation of the first initiative, January 2007 to September 2011; and 3) after implementation of the second initiative, October 2011 to September 2012. A subset of native renal biopsies was examined to determine if there was a relationship between adequacy and number of passes. Results: The percentages of adequate native renal biopsies during the first, second, and third periods were 31%, 72% and 90%, respectively. This represents a significant increase (40%, p < 0.0001) in adequacy following the first initiative, and another significant increase (18%, p = 0.0003) following the second initiative. The percentages of adequate renal allograft biopsies during the first, second, and third periods were 75%, 56% and 69%, respectively. These changes in adequacy were not statistically significant. In the subset of native renal biopsies examined, a biopsy comprising more than three cores was not associated with increase in adequacy. Limitations: The most important limitation is the lack of generally accepted and applied adequacy criteria limiting generalizability of our findings. Conclusions: Restricting the performance of biopsies to subspecialist operators, including an adequacy statement in the renal biopsy report and on-site adequacy assessment were effective in significantly improving native renal biopsy adequacy. This improvement appeared unrelated to an increase in the number of passes taken with a biopsy needle. Neither initiative improved the low adequacy of allograft biopsies.
AB - Background: An adequate renal biopsy is essential for diagnosis and treatment of medical renal disease. Objective: We evaluated two initiatives to improve adequacy of renal biopsy samples at our centre. Design: Retrospective determination of renal biopsy adequacy. Setting: Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre. Patients: Patients undergoing medical renal biopsies. Measurements: Renal biopsy adequacy. Methods: The first initiative was to restrict the performance of biopsies to a smaller group of radiologists and to include a comment on biopsy adequacy in every pathology report. The second initiative was to introduce on-site adequacy assessment by a medical laboratory technologist. Native renal and allograft biopsy adequacies were calculated for three periods: 1) baseline, October 2005 to September 2006; 2) after implementation of the first initiative, January 2007 to September 2011; and 3) after implementation of the second initiative, October 2011 to September 2012. A subset of native renal biopsies was examined to determine if there was a relationship between adequacy and number of passes. Results: The percentages of adequate native renal biopsies during the first, second, and third periods were 31%, 72% and 90%, respectively. This represents a significant increase (40%, p < 0.0001) in adequacy following the first initiative, and another significant increase (18%, p = 0.0003) following the second initiative. The percentages of adequate renal allograft biopsies during the first, second, and third periods were 75%, 56% and 69%, respectively. These changes in adequacy were not statistically significant. In the subset of native renal biopsies examined, a biopsy comprising more than three cores was not associated with increase in adequacy. Limitations: The most important limitation is the lack of generally accepted and applied adequacy criteria limiting generalizability of our findings. Conclusions: Restricting the performance of biopsies to subspecialist operators, including an adequacy statement in the renal biopsy report and on-site adequacy assessment were effective in significantly improving native renal biopsy adequacy. This improvement appeared unrelated to an increase in the number of passes taken with a biopsy needle. Neither initiative improved the low adequacy of allograft biopsies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84998879926&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84998879926&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s40697-015-0043-z
DO - 10.1186/s40697-015-0043-z
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84998879926
SN - 2054-3581
VL - 2
JO - Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
JF - Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
IS - 1
M1 - 8
ER -