Evidence Hub

Major Bleeding and Risk of Death after Percutaneous Native Kidney Biopsies: A French Nationwide Cohort Study

J. Halimi, P. Gatault, H. Longuet, C. Barbet, A. Bisson, B. Sautenet, J. Herbert, M. Büchler et al.

American Society of Nephrology. Clinical Journal, 2020

52,138 participants · 70 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The risk of major bleeding after percutaneous native kidney biopsy is usually considered low but remains poorly predictable. The aim of the study was to assess the risk of major bleeding and to build a preprocedure bleeding risk score.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Our study was a retrospective cohort study in all 52,138 patients who had a percutaneous native kidney biopsy in France in the 2010-2018 period. Measurements included major bleeding (i.e., blood transfusions, hemorrhage/hematoma, angiographic intervention, or nephrectomy) at day 8 after biopsy and risk of death at day 30. Exposures and outcomes were defined by diagnosis codes.

RESULTS

Major bleeding occurred in 2765 of 52,138 (5%) patients (blood transfusions: 5%; angiographic intervention: 0.4%; and nephrectomy: 0.1%). Nineteen diagnoses were associated with major bleeding. A bleeding risk score was calculated (Charlson index [2-4: +1; 5 and 6: +2; >6: +3]; frailty index [1.5-4.4: +1; 4.5-9.5: +2; >9.5: +3]; women: +1; dyslipidemia: -1; obesity: -1; anemia: +8; thrombocytopenia: +2; cancer: +2; abnormal kidney function: +4; glomerular disease: -1; vascular kidney disease: -1; diabetic kidney disease: -1; autoimmune disease: +2; vasculitis: +5; hematologic disease: +2; thrombotic microangiopathy: +4; amyloidosis: -2; other kidney diagnosis: -1) + a constant of 5. The risk of bleeding went from 0.4% (lowest score group =0-4 points) to 33% (highest score group ≥35 points).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 52,138 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free