Interventional nephrology has progressively emerged as a discipline aimed at integrating clinical management with procedural expertise in the care of patients with kidney disease. Historically, Italy has represented one of the leading international models in the management of dialysis access and ultrasound-guided procedures, largely due to the direct procedural involvement of nephrologists. This narrative review examines the historical evolution, status, and future perspectives of interventional nephrology in Italy. Early national surveys and data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study documented exceptionally high rates of native arteriovenous fistula use and minimal reliance on central venous catheters, outcomes closely associated with the active procedural role of nephrologists. However, more recent national surveys and international registry data indicate a gradual decline in nephrologists’ direct procedural involvement, paralleled by increasing catheter use and greater reliance on other specialties for dialysis access creation and related procedures. Several factors appear to contribute to this transition, including healthcare system reorganization, workforce reductions affecting training and mentorship, epidemiological changes in the dialysis population, increasing use of pre-emptive kidney transplantation, and evolving medico-legal considerations. Despite these challenges, Italian nephrology retains significant technical expertise and organizational potential. Strengthening structured training pathways, establishing coordinated educational initiatives, such as a proposed Academy of Interventional Nephrology and implementing collaborative hub-and-spoke networks could support the revitalization of procedural competencies within the specialty. Reintegrating procedural skills into nephrology practice may not only improve the quality and timeliness of dialysis access care and ultrasound-guided procedures but also help redefine the professional identity and future attractiveness of the discipline.
O’NeillW.The new nephrologist. Am J Kidney Dis2000; 35: 978–979.
2.
JacksonJWLewisJLBrouilletteJR, et al. Initial experience of a nephrologist-operated vascular access center. Semin Dial2000; 13: 354–358.
3.
NiyyarVDWorkJ.Interventional nephrology—past, present and future. Int J Artif Organs2009; 32: 129–132.
4.
BeathardGA.What is the current and future status of interventional nephrology?. Semin Dial2005; 18: 370–371.
5.
QuintonWEDillardDHColeJJ, et al. Eight months’ experience with Silastic–Teflon bypass cannulas. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs1962; 8: 236–245.
6.
BresciaMJCiminoJEAppelK, et al. Chronic hemodialysis using venipuncture and a surgically created arteriovenous fistula. N Engl J Med1966; 275: 1089–1092.
7.
UldallPRWoodsFMerchantN, et al. A subclavian cannula for temporary vascular access for haemodialysis and plasmapheresis. Proc Clin Dial Transplant Forum1979; 9: 32–36.
8.
TenckhoffHSchechterH.A bacteriologically safe peritoneal access device. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs1968; 14: 181–187.
9.
AshSR.Bedside peritoneoscopic peritoneal catheter placement of Tenckhoff and newer peritoneal catheters. Adv Perit Dial1998; 14: 75–79.
10.
IversenPBrunC.Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. Am J Med1951; 11: 324–330.
11.
KarkRM.The development of percutaneous renal biopsy in man. Am J Kidney Dis1990; 16: 585–589.
TrerotolaSOGrayRBrunnerM, et al. Interventional care of the hemodialysis patient: it’s about quality. J Vasc Interv Radiol2001; 12: 1253–1255.
14.
BeathardGALitchfieldT.Effectiveness and safety of dialysis vascular access procedures performed by interventional nephrologists. Kidney Int2004; 66: 1622–1632.
15.
NassKO’NeillWC.Bedside renal biopsy: ultrasound guidance by the nephrologist. Am J Kidney Dis1999; 34: 955–959.
16.
AsifA.Peritoneal dialysis access-related procedures by nephrologists. Semin Dial2004; 17: 398–406.
17.
AshSR.Who should place peritoneal catheters?. Nephrol News Issues1993; 7: 33–34.
18.
GohBLLimCTS. Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion techniques by the nephrologist. Semin Dial2024; 37: 24–35.
19.
GohBL.Nephrologist-initiated peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion programme: a new paradigm shift. Contrib Nephrol2017; 189: 79–84.
20.
NardelliLScalamognaASikharulidzeA, et al. The choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter design: variants and clinical implications. J Nephrol2026; 39: 233–245.
21.
SantarelliSRamazzottiVAgostinelliRM, et al. Interventional nephrology in peritoneal dialysis: best practice report of the Peritoneal Dialysis Project Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology. J Vasc Access2025; 26: 1459–1465.
22.
GohBLGaneshadevaYMChewSE, et al. Does peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion by interventional nephrologists enhance peritoneal dialysis penetration?. Semin Dial2008; 21: 561–566.
23.
AsifAPfledererTAVieiraCF, et al. Does catheter insertion by nephrologists improve peritoneal dialysis utilization? A multicenter analysis. Semin Dial2005; 18: 157–160.
24.
Al-HwieshAK.Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion by a nephrologist: a new, simple, and safe technique. Perit Dial Int2014; 34: 204–211.
25.
ScalamognaANardelliLCastellanoG.The use of mini-invasive surgical techniques to treat refractory exit-site and tunnel infections in peritoneal dialysis patients: a clinical approach. J Nephrol2023; 36: 1743–1749.
26.
ScalamognaANardelliLZanoniF, et al. Double purse-string around the inner cuff of the peritoneal catheter: a novel technique for an immediate initiation of continuous peritoneal dialysis. Int J Artif Organs2020; 43: 365–371.
27.
StegmayrBG.Three purse-string sutures allow immediate start of peritoneal dialysis with a low incidence of leakage. Semin Dial2003; 16: 346–348.
28.
NardelliLScalamognaACastellanoG.Utility of ultrasonographic examination in catheter-related infections in peritoneal dialysis: a clinical approach. J Nephrol2023; 36: 1751–1761.
29.
NardelliLScalamognaATripodiF, et al. Simultaneous removal and replacement of the peritoneal catheter in PD patients with partial refractory peritonitis. J Vasc Access2026; 27: 1337–1341.
30.
ScalamognaANardelliLZubidatD, et al. Simultaneous replacement and removal of the peritoneal catheter is effective in patients with refractory tunnel infections sustained byS. aureus. Int Urol Nephrol2023; 55: 151–155.
31.
SantarelliSZeilerMMonteburiniT, et al. Videolaparoscopic catheter placement reduces contraindications to peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int2013; 33: 372–378.
32.
NardelliLScalamognaATripodiF, et al. Tunnel ultrasound can guide the use of peritoneal dialysis catheter exit site relocation by external splicing and cuff removal in refractory tunnel infection. Int Urol Nephrol2024; 56: 2733–2741.
33.
NardelliLScalamognaAMoscardinoS, et al. Simultaneous removal and replacement of the peritoneal catheter in CAPD patient with refractory peritonitis sustained by P. aeruginosa: a case-report. J Vasc Access2024; 25: 1341–1344.
34.
MickleyVPoloJRBourquelotP.Do dialysis patients need a “new nephrologist”?. Am J Kidney Dis2001; 37: 1108–1109.
35.
PisoniRLYoungEWDykstraDM, et al. Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int2002; 61(1): 305–316.
36.
BonucchiDD’AmelioACapelliG, et al. Management of vascular access for dialysis: an Italian survey. Nephrol Dial Transplant1999; 14: 2116–2118.
37.
RavaniPMarcelliDMalbertiF.Vascular access surgery managed by renal physicians: the choice of native arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis2002; 40: 1264–1276.
38.
StanzialeRLodiMD’AndreaE, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis: experience of a team of nephrologists. Hemodial Int2008; 12: 328–330.
39.
BonucchiDPalmieriLArlettiS, et al. Vascular access scenario in Italy: evolution and comparison by two surveys (1998–2013). J Vasc Access2016; 17: 401–404.
40.
EthierJMendelssohnDCElderSJ, et al. Vascular access use and outcomes: an international perspective from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephrol Dial Transplant2008; 23: 3219–3226.
41.
AsanoMThummaJOguchiK, et al. Vascular access care and treatment practices associated with outcomes of arteriovenous fistula: international comparisons from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephron Clin Pract2013; 124: 23–30.
42.
PisoniRLZepelLPortFK, et al. Trends in US vascular access use, patient preferences, and related practices: an update from the US DOPPS practice monitor with international comparisons. Am J Kidney Dis2015; 65: 905–915.
43.
PisoniRLZepelLFluckR, et al. International differences in the location and use of arteriovenous accesses created for hemodialysis: results from the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis2018; 71: 469–478.
44.
NapoliMGuzziFMoraleW, et al. Vascular access for hemodialysis in Italy: what a national survey reveals. J Vasc Access2025; 26: 471–476.
45.
BuzziLBaragettiIBarbagalloMM, et al. Insights into the real-world practice of vascular access care pathways in Italy: data from a national survey. J Nephrol2025; 38: 481–489.
46.
JavaidMMKhanBAYeoXEE, et al. Sustained increase in peritoneal dialysis prevalence through a structured PD initiation service. Perit Dial Int2018; 38: 374–376.
47.
NardelliLScalamognaAPisatiS, et al. Urgent-start PD: a viable approach. G Ital Nefrol2021; 38: 2021-vol2.
48.
ScalamognaANardelliLCiceroE, et al. Analysis of mechanical complications in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. J Nephrol2022; 35: 1489–1496.
49.
MarinangeliGCabidduGNeriL, et al. La DP in Italia. Censimento GSDP-SIN 2010. G Ital Nefrol2014; 31: 1–20.
50.
NeriLViglinoGMarinangeliG, et al. La Dialisi Peritoneale in Italia: il 6° censimento del GSDP-SIN 2016. G Ital Nefrol2019; 3: 1–8.
51.
NeriLGiulianiAHeidempergherM, et al. Peritoneal dialysis in Italy: the 9th GPDP-SIN Census 2024. Twenty years of monitoring peritoneal dialysis. G Ital Nefrol2025; 42: 2025-vol4.
52.
AndrulliSRossiniMGigliottiG, et al. The risks associated with percutaneous native kidney biopsies: a prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant2023; 38: 655–663.
53.
LentiniPPrencipeMAGarozzoM, et al. From stethoscope to ultrasound: an Italian survey of nephrology ultrasound practice. J Nephrol2025; 38: 2909–2917.
54.
KorbetSMWhittierWLRodbyRA.Changing trends in the performance of percutaneous renal biopsy from nephrologist to interventional radiologist: a single-center experience. Am J Nephrol2018; 48: 326–329.
55.
FranceGTaroniFDonatiniA.The Italian health-care system. Health Econ2005; 14: S187–S202.
56.
NutiSSeghieriCVainieriM.Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation system in the public health care sector: some novel evidence from the Tuscany region experience. J Manag Gov2013; 17: 59–69.
57.
RicciardiWTarriconeR.The evolution of the Italian National Health Service. Lancet2021; 398: 2193–2206.
58.
HoekstraMWFBoeninkRBonthuisM, et al. The ERA Registry Annual Report 2023: epidemiology of kidney replacement therapy in Europe, with a focus on age comparisons. Clin Kidney J2026; 19(5): Article sfag036.
59.
CerettaMLNoordzijMLuxardoR, et al. Changes in co-morbidity pattern in patients starting renal replacement therapy in Europe—data from the ERA-EDTA Registry. Nephrol Dial Transplant2018; 33: 1794–1804.
SalihSSMMohamedKOMohamedaliAOO, et al. Predictors of early arteriovenous fistula failure in patients with end stage renal disease on hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Saf Surg2025; 19: 24.
62.
NardelliLPasseriniMZubidatD, et al. Association of incident dialysis modality with patient survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol2025; 26: 588.
63.
SoodMMLarkinaMThummaJR, et al. Major bleeding events and risk stratification of antithrombotic agents in hemodialysis: results from the DOPPS. Kidney Int2013; 84: 600–608.
64.
LochamSBeaulieuRJDakour-AridiH, et al. Role of antiplatelet therapy in the durability of hemodialysis access. J Nephrol2018; 31: 603–611.
65.
WinkelmayerWCPatrickARLiuJ, et al. The increasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation among hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol2011; 22: 349–357.
66.
WizemannVTongLSatayathumS, et al. Atrial fibrillation in hemodialysis patients: clinical features and associations with anticoagulant therapy. Kidney Int2010; 77: 1098–1106.
67.
KramerABoeninkRMercado VergaraCG, et al. Time trends in preemptive kidney transplantation in Europe: an ERA Registry study. Nephrol Dial Transplant2024; 39: 2100–2112.
GallieniMMartinaVRizzoMA, et al. Central venous catheters: legal issues. J Vasc Access2011; 12: 273–279.
70.
FioriniFGranataA.Positioning central venous catheters: how to prevent legal disputes. G Ital Nefrol2019; 36(6).
71.
KuECopelandTMcCullochCE, et al. Peritoneal dialysis catheter complications after insertion by surgeons, radiologists, or nephrologists. J Am Soc Nephrol2024; 35: 85–93.
72.
AsifABeathardGA.We need to train the trainers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2015; 10: 1711–1713.
73.
VachharajaniTJMoossaviSSalmanL, et al. Successful models of interventional nephrology at academic medical centers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2010; 5: 2130–2136.
74.
VachharajaniTJKimYSRiellaM, et al. International Society of Nephrology’s initiative on interventional nephrology minimum training and program-building standards in resource-limited countries. Kidney Int2020; 98: 1067–1070.
75.
American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology. Guidelines for training, certification, and accreditation in placement of permanent tunneled and cuffed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Semin Dial2002; 15: 440–444.
76.
American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology. Guidelines for training, certification, and accreditation for hemodialysis vascular access and endovascular procedures. Semin Dial2003; 16: 173–176.
77.
American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology. Certification https://www.asdin.org/page/2 (2026, accessed 19 May 2026).
78.
LefonsMAccotoSCaccettaF, et al. Un nuovo prototipo di registro degli accessi vascolari per emodialisi. G Ital Nefrol2019; 6: 1–8.
79.
PirozziNGiulianiAGrandiT, et al. Creation of autogenous radial cephalic direct wrist access for hemodialysis in the elderly using microsurgery. J Vasc Access2014; 15: 12–17.
80.
ANAAO ASSOMED. “Un disastro annunciato”. Non assegnato il 25% delle borse. E per emergenza-urgenza meno di una su tre, https://www.anaao.it/content.php?cont=41225 (2024, accessed 14 January 2026).
81.
ANAAO ASSOMED. Borse SMM. Trend negativo anche nel 2025: il 17% non è assegnato. La mappa per regione, https://www.anaao.it/content.php?cont=43770 (2025, accessed 14 January 2026).
