The current state of interventional nephrology in India

Nephrologists in India have embraced providing complete care to their patients and recognize the benefits of coordinated care. This review describes the practice of interventional nephrology in India. Even though the benefits of using tunneled catheters over nontunneled catheters are well recognized, the use of nontunneled catheters is preferred, primarily because of financial constraints and the lack of training facilities. Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the most common form of dialysis vascular access, often created by nephrologists. Upper arm AVF and arteriovenous grafts are uncommon. The implementation of surveillance tests and elective endovascular interventions on arteriovenous accesses is limited in India, compared to being a routine practice in the United States. The clinical experience from a center in Southern India is described here to show the current state of procedural nephrology practice in India.     

Interventional nephrology in Brazil: current and future status

The care of chronic kidney disease patients frequently involves many diagnostic and interventional procedures. Most of these procedures are currently performed by radiologists, vascular surgeons, and general surgeons. This has caused fragmented medical care, which has led many nephrologists to introduce a new paradigm, often referred as interventional nephrology (IN). The aim of this study was to establish the extent of involvement of the Brazilian nephrology community with regard to specific IN procedures. From October 2004 to February 2005, questionnaires were sent by e-mail to all 2500 nephrologists throughout Brazil. The enrollment questionnaire was composed of five sections, with questions about renal biopsy, specific training in ultrasonography, peritoneal dialysis access (insertion of peritoneal catheters guided or not by peritoneoscopy), hemodialysis vascular access (ability to place tunneled catheters, construction of arteriovenous fistulas, and other vascular access procedures), and the nephrologist's interest in being trained in IN. A total of 239 nephrologists answered the questionnaire. Only 18% of Brazilian nephrologists perform kidney biopsy guided by ultrasonography assisted by a radiologist. On the other hand, 42% of them reported that this procedure was done without any image support. Most of the respondents (85%) indicated that they were not formally trained to perform renal ultrasonography. When asked about peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, 66% of the respondents reported that they referred their patients to a surgeon for this procedure. The insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters guided by peritoneoscopy was reported by 3% of the respondents. Similar to the results for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, the majority of the respondents (77%) indicated no training in the insertion of tunneled catheters for temporary hemodialysis. Regarding the interest of nephrologists to participate in an IN program, the great majority (87%) responded that they would like to be trained in these procedures. Most nephrologists are not trained in IN procedures. Therefore, in Brazil, it will be necessary to develop training centers for IN that will allow nephrologists to optimize nephrology care.     

Training,certification, and reimbursement for nephrology procedures

The field of interventional nephrology is rapidly developing as an important new area of nephrology practice that holds great promise for improved patient care, outcomes, and cost control. This development is contingent on nephrologists acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills through suitable training and experience, and obtaining hospital privileges to perform these interventions. As more training programs are created, and credentialing criteria are established and accepted, it will become more practical for nephrologists to become interventionists. Reimbursement for interventional procedures can be complicated and confusing, with special problems applicable to a nephrology practice involved in the overall care of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. It is essential to become familiar with applicable procedure codes, global periods, and code modifiers to correctly describe these procedures and receive correct reimbursement. Nephrologists work together with vascular access surgeons and interventional radiologists to provide care for dialysis patients. The role of each specialist in the management of vascular access depends on his or her level of interest, knowledge, and technical skill. These roles may vary considerably from one practice to another. There is potential for this area to become highly contentious, especially if one specialist feels threatened by the activities of another. Optimal patient care will be achieved only if all involved physicians take a serious intellectual interest in vascular access, develop superior clinical skills, and maintain cooperative, collegial, relationships.     

Physician access and early nephrology care in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease

Early nephrology care may improve treatment outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease. We sought to examine if physician access affects early nephrology care defined as visiting a nephrologist 12 to 4 months before initiating dialysis. The study population consisted of elderly patients starting hemodialysis whose demographic characteristics and initial dialysis therapy were derived from form 2728 files of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Early nephrology care, chronic kidney disease and co-morbidities along with access to local non-nephrologist physicians and nephrologists were identified based on Medicare claims and/or United States 2000 Census data. About one-third of elderly patients received early nephrology care prior to initiating dialysis. Patients living in an area with a large number of non-nephrologist physicians or living relatively far away from a nephrologist had a lower likelihood of getting early nephrology care prior to initiating dialysis while those in an area with more practicing nephrologists were more likely to get early nephrology care. The study shows that physician access significantly influences the use of early nephrology care among elderly patients progressing to end-stage renal disease in the United States.     

Interventional nephrology: from episodic to coordinated vascular access care

In recent years, nephrologists have taken the initiative of performing vascular access-related procedures themselves. Because of their unique clinical perspective on dialysis access and better understanding of the intricacies of renal replacement therapy, nephrologists are ideally suited for this activity. This approach has minimized delays, decreased hospitalizations and decreased the use of temporary catheters, thereby improving medical care, decreasing costs and increasing patient convenience. Vascular access interventions commonly employed by nephrologists include vascular access education, vascular mapping, percutaneous balloon angioplasty, thrombectomy, intravascular coil and stent insertion and tunneled hemodialysis catheter-related procedures. While the performance of these procedures by nephrologists offers many advantages, appropriate training to develop the necessary procedural skills is critical. Recent data have emphasized that a nephrologist can be successfully trained to become a competent interventionalist. In addition to documenting excellent outcome data, multiple reports have demonstrated the safety and success of an interventional nephrology approach. The last decade has been a period of significant advances in this new field. This has been driven in part by the formation of the American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), whose mission includes training, quality assurance and certification. Recently, the ASDIN has published guidelines for training in nephrology-related procedures and has begun certifying physicians in specific procedures related to chronic kidney disease. It is anticipated that this will promote the skillful performance of these procedures by nephrologists and lead to substantial improvements in the care of renal patients. Challenges for the future include awareness of this subspecialty and development of training programs at academic centers on a larger scale.     

Epidemiology of hemodialysis vascular access in the United States

Reemergence of the importance of vascular access in the care of the chronic hemodialysis patient has gained prominence due to renewed interest in clinical outcomes and evidence-based interventions. Further fueled by anticipated regulatory changes in the reimbursement for dialysis care in the United States by 2011 and beyond, the drive to improve quality of care for hemodialysis patients has identified vascular access issues as a key contributor to outcomes. Focus has shifted from simply providing any hemodialysis vascular access to a strong preference for the use of native arteriovenous fistulas and subsequently to a need for reducing exposure to central venous catheters. Combined, these goals have forced a reevaluation of the role of arteriovenous grafts. The context and events associated with the evolution of thinking on these issues as well as available data supporting them are discussed. The key leadership role of nephrologists is emphasized along with a summary of problems and proposed solutions.     

A vascular access coordinator improves the prevalent fistula rate

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services set the prevalent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) rate of 66% as a national standard. To test the hypothesis that the use of a clinical vascular access coordinator could increase the rate of AVF in a large Nephrology group practice, we implemented an aggressive, multidisciplinary vascular access improvement program led by a trained vascular access coordinator (VAC). In early 2009, we established protocols, approved by all physicians, for the care of vascular access and implemented by a nurse VAC. We retrospectively reviewed Network vascular access data reports from January 2008 through December 2010. The data show that after the implementation of a comprehensive access program led by a VAC, the prevalent AVF rate increased from 50% to 65%. The number of grafts decreased while the percentage of dialysis catheters used for more than 90 days was cut in half. These data suggest that despite an unchanged catheter rate at dialysis initiation, the use of a VAC implementing an aggressive, multidisciplinary access program can significantly increase the AVF rate while decreasing grafts and prevalent catheter use.     

Interventional nephrology in Puerto Rico

Vascular access is emerging as a critical issue for hemodialysis patients in Puerto Rico. In more than 50% of the hemodialysis patients, tunneled hemodialysis catheters are the sole access for providing dialysis therapy. Most disturbing is the fact that a significant number of these catheters are nontunneled temporary catheters, sometimes placed in the subclavian vein. These facts have contributed significantly to the morbidity and mortality seen in chronic dialysis patients. In addition, many cases of early or late dysfunction of arteriovenous access are not detected and treated in a timely manner due to the lack of a comprehensive vascular access program for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. In fact, monitoring programs to identify and detect vascular access dysfunction are virtually nonexistent in many chronic dialysis units. Even when diagnosed, it is not treated in a timely fashion. Recently literature has shown that procedure-related delays in the treatment of patients with renal disease can be minimized and nephrology care more efficiently delivered by a nephrologist trained in nephrology-related procedures. In an effort to optimize the care of our ESRD patients, we took the initiative to develop an interventional nephrology program that effectively deals with vascular access-related procedures in a timely manner. This approach has minimized delays, decreased hospitalizations and the use of temporary catheters, and improved the medical care of our chronic dialysis patients. So far we have performed more than 400 procedures in the 6 months since the initiation of the program. In this article we describe our initial experience with interventional nephrology in Puerto Rico.     

Hemodialysis vascular access: percutaneous interventions by nephrologists

Traditionally hemodialysis vascular access-related procedures have been almost exclusively performed by surgeons and interventional radiologists. In recent years, nephrologists have taken the initiative of performing these procedures themselves. Because of their unique clinical perspective on dialysis access and better understanding of the intricacies of renal replacement therapy, nephrologists are ideally suited for this activity. This approach has minimized delays, decreased hospitalizations, and decreased the use of temporary catheters, thereby improving medical care, decreasing costs, and increasing patient convenience. Vascular access-related procedures commonly performed by nephrologists include percutaneous balloon angioplasty, thrombectomy, and tunneled hemodialysis catheter-related procedures. In addition, using vein obliteration and percutaneous balloon angioplasty techniques, nephrologists have recently documented successful salvage of arteriovenous fistulas that had failed to mature, whereas traditionally these fistulas have frequently been abandoned. While the performance of these procedures by nephrologists offers many advantages, appropriate training in order to develop the necessary procedural skills is critical. Recent data have emphasized that a nephrologist can be successfully trained to become a competent interventionalist. In addition to documenting excellent outcome data, multiple reports have demonstrated the safety and success of interventional nephrology. This review focuses on hemodialysis access-related procedures performed by nephrologists and calls for a proactive approach in optimizing this aspect of patient care.     

Nephrology nurse practitioners in a collaborative care model

The use of nurse practitioners in the primary care setting is increasingly common. However, little information is available on their use in specialty care areas. This is especially true in nephrology, in which end-stage renal disease (ESRD) lends itself well to this type of practice. We describe our experience with a university-based collaborative care model for ESRD with nurse practitioners in nephrology. Our experience shows that nephrology nurse practitioners have a significant impact on extending the quality and quantity of patient care provided by the nephrologist. They facilitate a holistic patient-friendly approach, and, as an integral part of the collaborative model, there is an associated significant decrease in patient mortality relative to standard comparators. Nurse practitioners provide a large amount of care for ESRD patients in a relatively independent fashion but under the supervision and with the collaborative interaction of nephrologists. Patient satisfaction, approval, respect, and trust for the nurse practitioners are exceptional. The use of nephrology nurse practitioners provides the potential for augmenting patient care, satisfaction, and access to care. It provides an avenue for potential cost reduction in nephrology while maintaining quality of care. It further provides a partial solution to the anticipated shortage of nephrologists in the twenty-first century.     

Cardiac Assist Devices and Hemodialysis Catheter Procedures – What Do the Nephrologists Need to Know?

The use of ventricular assist devices (VAD) and total artificial heart (TAH) is increasing rapidly, and a large proportion of these device recipients already have or will develop severe renal dysfunction at the time of device implantation. As a consequence, nephrologists are becoming more and more involved in the care of this challenging population. As nephrologists take upon themselves many aspects of dialysis vascular access care, they need to be familiar with the special circumstances of performing hemodialysis catheter procedures in these patients. This review describes the important characteristics of these devices that have serious implications for the technique of placing or replacing dialysis catheters. These implications apply for both tunneled and nontunneled dialysis catheters and so concern all nephrologists, not only the interventionalists. We describe the important anatomical factors, anticoagulation management, device management, vascular access management and technical considerations of placing or replacing tunneled and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters from the perspective of a nephrologist establishing and maintaining lifesaving dialysis vascular access. Without a good understanding of these devices, serious consequences such as VAD rotor damage or blockage, or artificial heart valve blockage or damage can occur. These artificial devices are lifesaving, and any such complication is unacceptable. This review describes steps to minimize the risks.     

Central venous catheters for chronic hemodialysis: Is “last choice” never the “right choice”?

Since the publication of the first vascular access clinical practice guidelines in 1997, the global nephrology community has dedicated significant time and resources toward increasing the prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas and decreasing the prevalence of central venous catheters for hemodialysis. These efforts have been bolstered by observational studies showing an association between catheter use and increased patient morbidity and mortality. To date, however, no randomized comparisons of the outcomes of different forms of vascular access have been conducted. There is mounting evidence that much of the difference in patient outcomes may be explained by patient factors, rather than choice of vascular access. Some have called into question the appropriateness of fistula creation for certain patient populations, such as those with limited life expectancy and those at high risk of fistula‐related complications. In this review, we explore the extent to which catheters and fistulas exhibit the characteristics of the “ideal” vascular access and highlight the significant knowledge gaps that exist in the current literature. Further studies, ideally randomized comparisons of different forms of vascular access, are required to better inform shared decision making.     

Efficiency and outcomes of emergent vascular access procedures performed at a dedicated outpatient vascular access center

The outpatient vascular access center (VAC) may have an important impact in improving the outcomes of emergent procedures on nonfunctioning hemodialysis access. An emergent procedure is defined as the absence of a functioning access for hemodialysis, including thrombosed graft or fistula, nonfunctioning dialysis catheters, and the need for access to initiate emergent hemodialysis. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficiency and outcomes of all consecutive emergent hemodialysis access procedures during a 3-month period at a single high volume VAC. Data collection for each procedure included anatomic outcome, clinical outcome, the amount of time from referral to procedure and to successful dialysis, 2-week-follow-up to screen for postprocedure complications and fluoroscopy time. A total of 157 emergent procedures were performed in 136 patients with the majority of interventions on nonfunctioning grafts and tunneled catheters. The overall clinical success (defined as successful postprocedure completion of at least one dialysis treatment at the prescribed blood flow) was achieved in 149 out of 157 (95%) cases. 90% of subjects completed their procedure within 24 hours of the initial referral to the VAC. The study also demonstrated a rapid turn around time, with successful dialysis being performed within 24 hours of referral in 61% and within 48 hours in 90% of referrals. This is the first study to demonstrate both the efficiency and successful outcomes of an outpatient vascular access center in treating emergent vascular access problems.     

Impact of Training in Interventional Nephrology on Hemodialysis Vascular Access Types

Vascular access has been a major problem in the management of end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD). Native arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are the preferred vascular access for ESRD patients on HD. Multiple factors have been evaluated as causes for poor AVF rates. The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to assess the impact of training of nephrologist in interventional nephrology (IN) on vascular access outcomes. We studied the rates of different types of vascular access amongst patients on chronic HD under the care of two nephrology groups over 25 months in a community dialysis unit. In group A, all vascular access were managed directly by an interventional nephrologist, while in group B they were managed by general nephrologist with no exposure to IN during their training. A total of 129 patients received dialysis for at least 4 months at the unit during those 25 months. The rate of AVFs in group A was 56.6%, while in group B the rate of AVFs was 40.8% ( p  = 0.059). The rate of AVGs in group A was 22.9% and in group B it was 27.6% ( p  = 0.647). The tunneled HD catheter rate in group A was 20.4% and in group B it was 31.6% ( p  = 0.098). The results of this study demonstrate that training of nephrologists in IN leads to increased use of AVF as HD vascular access. We suggest that training programs in nephrology should consider incorporating IN into their programs to increase the prevalence of AVFs.     

Canadian survey of clinical status at dialysis initiation 1998-1999: a multicenter prospective survey

AIMS: The current growth in end-stage kidney disease populations has led to increased efforts to understand the impact of status at dialysis initiation on long-term outcomes. Our main objective was to improve the understanding of current Canadian nephrology practice between October 1998 and December 1999. METHODS: Fifteen nephrology centers in 7 provinces participated in a prospective data collection survey. The main outcome of interest was the clinical status at dialysis initiation determined by: residual kidney function, preparedness for chronic dialysis as measured by presence or absence of permanent peritoneal or hemodialysis access, hemoglobin and serum albumin. Uremic symptoms at dialysis initiation were also recorded, however, in some cases these symptom data were obtained retrospectively. RESULTS: Data on 251 patients during 1-month periods were collected. Patients commenced dialysis at mean calculated creatinine clearance levels of approximately 10 ml/min, with an average of 3 symptoms. 35% of patients starting dialysis had been known to nephrologists for less than 3 months. These patients are more likely to commence without permanent access and with lower hemoglobin and albumin levels. Even of those known to nephrologists, only 66% had permanent access in place. CONCLUSIONS: Patients commencing dialysis in Canada appear to be doing so in relative concordance with published guidelines with respect to timing of initiation. Despite an increased awareness of kidney disease, a substantial number of patients continues to commence dialysis without previous care by a nephrologist. Of those who are seen by nephrologists, clinical and laboratory parameters are suboptimal according to current guidelines. This survey serves as an important baseline for future comparisons after the implementation of educational strategies for referring physicians and nephrologists.     

Hemodialysis catheters and ports

Percutaneous placement of cuffed tunneled catheters for hemodialysis access has become a firmly established method of providing vascular access to patients with end-stage renal disease. Considerable evidence supports the right internal jugular vein as the preferred site for catheter insertion. The use of real-time imaging using both ultrasound and fluoroscopy permits simple, safe, and effective placement of the catheter for hemodialysis. The use of these imaging techniques has significantly reduced the number of and severity of complications associated with catheter placement. A specific method of placement is described including variations for specific catheter types. The new subcutaneous port as an alternative to the cuffed tunneled catheter appears to provide another option for vascular access; preliminary data suggests higher flow rates and lower infection rates compared with externalized cuffed tunneled catheters. Finally, the criteria for obtaining training and proficiency in placement of cuffed tunneled catheters are outlined.     

Interventional nephrology in a federal hospital: economics of health care

Interventional nephrology is now an accepted subspecialty of nephrology that is revolutionizing the standard of care for renal failure patients. Interventional nephrology deals with the placement of tunneled cuffed catheters (TCCs) and maintenance of permanent vascular accesses, thus assisting in timely care. Prior to 2000 most end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from the Overton Brooks Veterans Affairs Medical Center (OBVAMC) were referred to an outlying hospital for TCC placement and endovascular procedures (EVPs) of permanent dialysis access. The referral process was cumbersome for the patients and expensive to the Medicine Service. OBVAMC started an interventional nephrology service in 2000. The current study reports the financial benefits of starting an interventional nephrology service at our institution. All procedures performed during the period from April 2000 to April 2004 were analyzed. The procedures were performed in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The total payment (physician's and hospital fees) to the referral hospital for procedures prior to April 2000 was used to estimate the average savings to the Medicine Service over the last 4 years. A total of 129 TCCs and 43 EVPs were performed during this period. The estimated expense to OBVAMC would have been US dollars 603,978 for TCCs and US dollars 288,100 for EVPs based on charges prior to April 2000. The actual expense to the hospital, including facility fees and disposables, was US dollars 156,013. The net savings to OBVAMC over the last 4 years was US dollars 736,065. Interventional nephrology provided to a small population of renal failure patients in a tertiary federal health care facility has resulted in huge savings for the hospital. Increasing awareness of this procedural aspect of nephrology benefits not only the patients, but also helps ease the financial burden of ever-escalating health care costs.     

Central venous catheters as a vascular access modality for pediatric hemodialysis

Background The use of hemodialysis catheters is an essential component of dialysis practice. Children are particularly likely to require multiple courses of dialysis over their lifetime, hence the repeated need for vascular access. These catheters remain a significant source of morbidity and mortality. Methods All catheters inserted for hemodialysis at the Center of Pediatric Nephrology and Transplantation, Cairo University over a period of 40 months were studied. Patient data as well as data of catheter insertion, dwell, cause of removal and complications were reported. Results A total of 195 uncuffed central venous catheters were used for temporary access in 131 patients for a mean duration of 35.7 days. Of attempted insertions, 87.4% achieved successful access, of which 56% remained for the required period, 8.9% were accidentally dislodged, and 35.1% were removed due to complications—mostly infection. The overall rate of possible catheter-related bacteremia was 9.6 episodes/ 1,000 catheter days. Infection increased with longer catheter dwell. Nineteen cuffed tunneled catheters were surgically inserted and used for up to 11 months (mean 117 days). Loss of these catheters was attributed mainly to infection (ten episodes) and catheter thrombosis (six episodes). During the study, 317 femoral catheters were inserted. Conclusion Uncuffed central venous catheters are both needed and useful for short-term hemodialysis. Vascular access for extended durations may be provided by cuffed tunneled catheters. Infection is the major serious concern with both uncuffed and cuffed catheters.     

Implantation of permanent jugular catheters in patients on regular dialysis treatment: ten years' experience

Dual-lumen cuffed central venous catheter proved an important alternative vascular access compared to conventional arteriovenous (Cimino-Brescia) shunt in a selected group of patients on regular dialysis treatment. Typically, these catheters are used as bridging access, until fistula or graft is ready for use, or as permanent access when an arteriovenous fistula or graft is not planned (NKF-DOQI). We conducted a prospective study on IJV permanent catheter insertion and its related earlier and long-term complications. From February 1991 to February 2001 we inserted in 124 patients in end stage renal disease 135 cuffed catheters (130 in the right IJV and 5 in the left IJV), 92 of which were Permcath, 27 Vascath, and 16 Ash-Split. We performed the insertion of catheters by puncturing the IJV under ultrasonographic guid-ance in the lower side of the Sedillot triangle and checking the accurate position of the tip by endocavitary electrocardiography (EC-ECG). The duration of catheter use was from 60 to 1460 days, mean 345 days. The actuarial survival rate at 1 year was 82%, at 2 years 56%, at 3 years 42% and at 4 years 20%. The exit site infection and septicemia rates were 5.2 and 2.86 per 1000 catheter days respectively. Catheter sepsis was implicated in the death of three patients, all of whom had multiple medical problems. Several episodes of thrombosis (6% of dialyses) occurred which required urokinase treatment, and catheter replacement in 12 patients (9.6%). In 3 cases the catheters were displaced and correct repositioning was performed. Two catheters (Ash-Split) were replaced due to accidental damage of the external portion of catheters (alcoholic disinfectant). Catheter tip embolism occurred on one occasion during elective catheter exchange over guide-wire. One of the common problems encountered with cuffed tunneled catheters is poor blood flow, most often secondary to the formation of a fibrin sheath around the lumen. Even if we conducted a non-randomized study, in our experience, the higher rate of malfunctioning catheters was in the group with no anticoagulation therapy. Therefore, we suggest anticoagulation treatment in all patients wearing central vascular catheters with no contraindication. Just one year ago, we followed NKF-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for vascular access that indicated that for patients who have a primary AV fistula maturing, but need im-mediate hemodialysis, tunneled cuffed catheters are the access of choice and the preferred insertion site is the right IJV. Considering recent reports of permanent central venous stenosis or occlusion after IJV can-nulation, currently, our first choice is femoral vein cannulation with smooth silicone rubber catheters, tunneled if long-term utilization is needed (more the 3-4 weeks). In our opinion, the right IJV puncture is to be avoided as much as the venipuncture of arm veins suitable for vascular access placement, particularly the cephalic vein of the non-dominant arm. Our data confirm that permanent venous catheters might rep-resent an effective long-term vascular access for chronic hemodialysis, particularly for older patients with cardiovascular disease and for cancer patients.     

Bedside Tunneled Dialysis Catheter Removal—A Lesson Learned From Nephrology Trainees

Semi‐permanent dual‐lumen tunneled (or tunneled‐cuffed) hemodialysis catheters (TDC) are increasingly utilized during renal replacement therapy, while awaiting permanent access maturation or renal recovery. Although there is a wealth of literature focused on placement, infection prevention, and maintenance of catheter patency, circumstances and indications for TDC removal are less well understood. Timely removal of these catheters is an important management decision, with the length of TDC duration representing the largest cumulative risk factor for catheter‐associated blood stream infections. Waiting for assistance from surgical or radiological services—which may not be available in all hospitals—may result in delays in services and potential harm to the patients. Imparting and maintaining procedural skills to remove infected TDC may be very valuable for training programs in clinical nephrology. In this article the current literature on bedside TDC removal, including potential anticipated complications during removal, are reviewed. To date, the authors have documented successful implementation of bedside TDC removal in training programs from two different settings, including both in‐ and outpatients and with trainee involvement. In summary, training general nephrologists for bedside TDC removal will afford immediate removal of infected hardware in ill patients and avoid potential delays in outpatient setting.