ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Histopathological features on time-zero renal biopsies correlate with graft outcome after renal transplantation. With increasing numbers of marginal donors, assessment of pre-implantation graft quality is essential. The clinician's choice of wedge or core biopsy is performed without evidence of efficacy or safety. This study aims to compare the information derived from wedge biopsy versus core biopsy. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 37 wedge biopsies and 30 core biopsies was performed. Histopathological data were collected on number of glomeruli and arterioles observed, and Remuzzi scoring for glomerulosclerosis, tubular atrophy, interstitial fibrosis, and arteriolar narrowing was performed. Clinical data on delayed graft function (DGF) were also collated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for DGF were compared. RESULTS: Patient demographics between the two cohorts were comparable. No complications of biopsies occurred; 81% of wedge biopsies versus 50% of core biopsies had >10 glomeruli (P = .01), whereas 32% of wedge biopsies and 57% of core biopsies had >2 arterioles (P = .02). Wedge biopsies were more likely to identify pathology with more glomerulosclerosis, tubular atrophy (P < .01), and interstitial fibrosis (P < .01). There was a non-significant trend toward high Remuzzi scores in wedge biopsy (22% versus 7% with Remuzzi ≥ 4; P = .12). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of Remuzzi ≥ 4 for predicting DGF was better on wedge biopsy (45.5% versus 0%; P < .01 and 62.5% versus 0%; P < .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Wedge biopsies were safe and superior to core biopsies for identifying clinically significant histopathological findings on pre-implantation renal biopsy. We believe that the wedge biopsy is the method of choice for time-zero biopsies.
