Risk and Timing of Major Bleeding Complications Requiring Intervention of the Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy With a Short Observation Protocol: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We previously published a retrospective study of kidney biopsies performed in a tertiary care hospital in London, Ontario from 2012 to 2017. This study resulted in a change of practice in our institution to shorter postbiopsy monitoring for outpatients as well as the development of a risk calculator to predict serious bleeding complications. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether this shorter monitoring time is adequate in the outpatient setting. A secondary objective was to validate the bleeding risk calculator in both inpatients and outpatients. Design: This was a retrospective chart review. Setting: This study was performed at a tertiary academic hospital in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants: This was a retrospective study of 400 adult patients who underwent kidney biopsy between April 30, 2018 and February 25, 2022 at a tertiary academic hospital in London, Canada. Methods: We retrospectively assessed frequency and timing of major bleeding complications in patients who underwent kidney biopsy. In secondary analyses, we examined the prediction performance of the risk calculator in discrimination and calibration. Results: Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.8%). Five of these patients required blood transfusions (1.3%) and 2 required embolization (0.5%). In the outpatient setting, any major bleeding events were identified immediately (1 patient) or on the routine 2-hour ultrasounds (1 patient). The risk calculator showed good discrimination (C-statistic, 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.84 to 0.95]) and calibration (slope, 1.10, 95% CI = [0.47 to 1.74]; intercept, 95% CI = -0.02 [-0.79 to 0.75]), but with much uncertainty in the estimates. Limitations: The occurrence of only a few major bleeding events limits the reliability of our assessment of our risk calculator. Conclusions: There appears to be little yield in extending observation beyond 2 hours after an outpatient kidney biopsy with the use of immediate and 2-hour postbiopsy ultrasounds. The bleeding risk calculator (http://perioperativerisk.com/kbrc) warrants further validation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".