ABSTRACT
AIM: Kidney biopsy (KB) is the gold standard procedure for diagnosing kidney diseases. Globally, nephrologists are trained to perform KB. However, the past few decades have witnessed a transition where interventional radiologists (IRs) are now preferentially performing the procedure. Our survey-based cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the current trends of KB operators in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) in practicing interventional nephrologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Association of Vascular Access and intervenTionAl Renal Physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey among interventional nephrologists from the APR to investigate who does KB, if the nephrology training curriculum includes KB, and whether nephrologists have access to ultrasound. RESULTS: Out of 21 countries from the APR that participated in our survey, 10 countries (47.4%) reported that more than 70% of their nephrologists performed KB, whereas in 11 countries (57.6%), KB was most likely done by an IR. The frequency of nephrologists performing KB ranged from 0% in Afghanistan to 100% in countries such as Pakistan, Singapore, and Thailand. Formal training for KB and access to ultrasound was available to nephrologists in 80% of the responding countries. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that despite the availability of training and access to USG, a significant number of nephrologists are not performing KB in the APR. Similar to the trends observed in Western countries, the observed pattern in the APR could be due to lack of time, less incentive, hospital policy, or interest of nephrologists in other aspects of intervention nephrology.
Subject(s)
Nephrologists , Nephrology , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Nephrology/education , Kidney/diagnostic imaging , Kidney/pathology , Asia , Biopsy/methodsABSTRACT
AIM: This cross-sectional survey aimed to determine the prevalence of Interventional Nephrology (IN) practice amongst nephrologists in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), specifically related to dialysis access (DA). METHODS: The Association of VA and intervenTionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey amongst nephrologists from the Asia-Pacific to determine the practice of IN in the planning, creation, and management of dialysis access. The treatment modalities, manpower and equipment availability, monthly cost of treatment, specifics of dialysis access interventions, and challenges in the training and practice of IN by nephrologists were included in the survey. RESULTS: Twenty-one countries from the APR participated in the survey. Nephrologists from 18 (85.7%) countries reported performing at least one of the basic dialysis access-related IN procedures, primarily the placement of non-tunnelled central catheters (n-TCC; 71.5%). Only 10 countries (47.6%) reported having an average of <4% of nephrologists performing any of the advanced IN access procedures, the most common being the placement of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter (20%). Lack of formal training (57.14%), time (42.8%), incentive (38%), institutional support (38%), medico-legal protection (28.6%), and prohibitive cost (23.8%) were the main challenges to practice IN. The primary obstacles to implementing the IN training were a lack of funding and skilled personnel. CONCLUSION: The practice of dialysis access-related IN in APR is inadequate, mostly due to a lack of training, backup support, and economic constraints, whereas training in access-related IN is constrained by a lack of a skilled workforce and finances.
Subject(s)
Nephrology , Humans , Nephrology/education , Renal Dialysis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Catheterization/methods , Asia/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Introduction: Tunneled femoral vein hemodialysis catheters are used when all other options for permanent vascular access or jugular central vein catheter are exhausted. There is little published literature on the outcome and survival of tunneled femoral vein catheters. Methods: Using a retrospective database, we identified all tunneled femoral dialysis catheters placed in the Nephrology department of our institute over a one-and-half year period. The outcomes, complications, and patency of these procedures was retrospectively evaluated. Results: Out of total 21 patients, 14 were female and 7 males with a mean age of 45 (range 17-73 years) and about one-fourth had diabetes mellitus (26%). Right-sided femoral catheter insertion was performed in 18 patients (85.7%) and 3 patients underwent left-sided insertion. Technical success of placement was 100% with no immediate complications. Median follow up period was 24 days. Primary catheter patency at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days were 81, 29, 18, and 12.5%, respectively. Three patients (15.7%) developed catheter-related deep venous thrombosis. Three catheters (14.2%) were removed for catheter-related infection and seven (33.3%) were removed because of absent blood flow. Conclusion: Our experience with tunneled femoral catheters revealed low catheter survival and significant complications (deep venous thrombosis and malfunction/occlusion).