Can someone explain NIR? confused....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Hi everybody,

I am new to this profile. I am currently PGY 2 in Neurology program. I am avidly interested in NIR in future. I think the future is bright, for neurologists. I am at one of the top 10 programs. This year one of the stroke fellow matched at NIR fellowship from my program. Its a great field, watch for it!!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Hi everybody,

I am new to this profile. I am currently PGY 2 in Neurology program. I am avidly interested in NIR in future. I think the future is bright, for neurologists. I am at one of the top 10 programs. This year one of the stroke fellow matched at NIR fellowship from my program. Its a great field, watch for it!!

Which program would that be?
 
does anyone know about any programs that do not have NIR training spots, but are planning on adding them?



---------------------------------------
Fight me. http://konhndrkx.mybrute.com
 
Members don't see this ad :)
But that is not me. This is what I heard!
 
Just an update:

I know of a stroke guy who has matched in a VIR Radiology fellowship (ACGME approved) through the radiology NRMP fellowship match. The word on the street is that the Neurovascular Coalition was not able to come out with a joint statement for training pathways to include Neurologists, Neurosurgeons, Neuroradiologists, Vascular & Interventional Radiologists & Cardiologists for neurointervention. It seems the coalition has broken into 3 groups-Neurologists & Neurosurgeons, Neuroradiologist & VI Radiologists (yeah we radiologists stick together) and finally Interventional Cardiologists; each developing their own pathways for NIR. It also seems that VIR will have its own independent pathway for neurointervention training. The Neurologists & Neurosurgeons jointly are coming up with a board exam in the next few years (possibly 5 years time). There should be a grandfathering process for all people doing neurointervention for this test.

The gist is, with VIR matching 40-60% of their spots in each MATCH (radiologists are not too keen to stand around patients for 4-10 hrs pushing catheters or needles & dealing with post-op complications) this is a good way to enter into NIR & get some catheter training if one doesnt get an NIR spot straingt out of VN fellowship.

VIR itself is trying to break away from radiology by developing the VIR-DIRECT pathway which will be a 7-yr residency/fellowship training program with 2 yrs of clinical training (preferably surgical), 2-yrs of imaging training & then 3 yrs of VIR. Radiologists in VIR have acknowledged the need for greater clinical exposure before doing interventional procedures. The proposal is in the works with ACR. There are about 14 programs on the list who are developing this kind of a program. My guess is, some of these programs are trying out clinicians in their vacant fellowship positions to see how this future program will work out.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty wild discussion. Here is what I can add.

At my place, there are 3 neurointerventionalists--a neuroradiologist, a neurosurgeon, and a neurologist. I am the neurologist.

We cooperate with each other. We are friends. We each do diagnostic and interventional cases, helping each other out on cases regularly. We share patients, and refer to each other when appropriate.

We each bring something special to the table. The radiologist can offer us the best in interpretation of neuroimaging scans. The radiologist is also the most experienced INR of the three of us. The neurosurgeon can operate if there is a complication that needs a craniotomy. I bring expertise in stroke care and the time to medically manage these patients through their rocky courses.

It's a good system, and one I would recommend.
 
That sounds like the way it should work. What hospital do you work at? Is there a stroke or neurocritical fellowship there?
 
This is a pretty wild discussion. Here is what I can add.

At my place, there are 3 neurointerventionalists--a neuroradiologist, a neurosurgeon, and a neurologist. I am the neurologist.

We cooperate with each other. We are friends. We each do diagnostic and interventional cases, helping each other out on cases regularly. We share patients, and refer to each other when appropriate.

We each bring something special to the table. The radiologist can offer us the best in interpretation of neuroimaging scans. The radiologist is also the most experienced INR of the three of us. The neurosurgeon can operate if there is a complication that needs a craniotomy. I bring expertise in stroke care and the time to medically manage these patients through their rocky courses.

It's a good system, and one I would recommend.

Thanks for the insight. I am a 3rd year medical student interested in pursuing Neurology and perhaps NIR. If you would be so kind, would you please outline your typical work week so that I and other students can get a feel for what its like to be a Neurointerventionalist via Neurology.

Thanks
 
Thanks rotenone for your post. I am a stroke trained neurologist currently in INR training and we have a similar setup at our program. I truly enjoy learning many aspects of INR training from neurointerventionalists from the 3 backgrounds.
Regarding security of our subspeciality, I think we will have to learn to share carotid stenting with cardiologists, vasc surgeons. This also because they have been involved in carotid stenting trials and this has provided them credentialing and also legitimized their claim. But there is no way intracranial and spinal cord procedures would go away. It is good that all clinical trials on intracranial/spinal cord procedures includes only neurointerventionalists. Also the ACGME has establised 'knowledge based cognitive' as well as 'procedural skill' requirements for ESN procedures, which would never be able to provide a way for non-neurointerventionalists to do it in a big way.
Secondly, our subspeciality involves high malpractice. No matter how much money cardiologists or others make, they would never be able to convince insurers to provide coverage for procedures outside their realm. They would be able to do carotid stents though. Neurointerventional procedures have higher complication rates than cardiac, and if cardiologists/vasc surg attemp these, they would be pulled up in law courts. The good thing is that all neurointerventionalists regardless of their background are unanimous about this aspect. Medical malpractice is a double edged sword, but it would realistically ensure that others keep out of it. This is also good for our patients.
 
'VIR-DIRECT' pathway for neuro-intervention regardless of how they train is unlikely to find support from neurosurgeons, neurologists and even neuroradiologists that have significant neuroimaging expertise.
There is no way 'clinical specialities' would give away access/control of patients to general interventionalists. The ACR may try this pathway, but would find it hard to convince clinical speciality boards to give-up parts of their practice. The 2 years of clinical training is too less to let physicians make therapeutic decisions as well as perform procedures.
The Neurovascular coalition has the same individuals that have formulated the ACGME and credentialing requirements for neuroendovasc procedures.
The JCAHO, hospital administrations and malpractice insurers always look at standards set by ACGME before they allow individuals to perform procedures. The only 'neurointervention' procedure that cardiologists or vasc surgeons would do is carotid stenting because they have been involved in stenting trials and the ACGME has provided these credentials. The cardiology and vasc surgery boards will never be able to provide credentialing for intracranial/spinal cord procedures because they are not/will never be involved in those clinical trials. This will involve high medical malpractice as well. The neurovascular community is also well aware of this.
 
This article has been published last month and hopefully, will provide some answers for those interested and aspired.

10 Most Commonly Asked Questions About Training in Interventional Neurology

Taylor RA, Qureshi AI.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 55455, USA

1.What is interventional neurology?
Historically, neurologists have been often perceived as expert diagnosticians who referred patients for interventional or neuroendovascular procedures. However, advances in therapeutics for neurologic diseases and trends toward minimally invasive treatments have led to the emergence and growth of neurologists who perform therapeutic procedures themselves. This has formed the basis of interventional neurology as a subspecialty.

Interventional Neurology began as a section of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) in 1996. The section was initiated by neurologists who performed interventional pain management, but subsequently evolved to include members who perform neuroendovascular procedures. The purpose of the interventional neurology section as stated by the by-laws is to promote research, education, and credentialing for interventional procedures performed by neurologists, and to promote the access and availability of interventional procedures to the neurologic community.1 Interventional procedures include, but are not limited to, invasive catheterization, injection for therapeutic purposes, or other invasive procedures used for diagnosis. Examples may include interventional pain procedures, spine interventions, muscle biopsies, diagnostic cerebral angiography, and endovascular interventions of the central nervous system, head, neck, and spine. Over the years, the perception of interventional neurology has become similar to that of interventional cardiology, representing a subspecialty focusing on (neuroendovascular) procedures performed through intravascular catheters.

Interventional Neurology was incorporated as an official term when the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN) was started in August 2006 by neurologists who predominantly had interests in neuroendovascular procedures for the central nervous system, head, neck, and spine. The purposes of this society are to represent a group of persons interested in the innovative treatment of cerebrovascular and other neurologic disorders, to foster cooperation among specialists and subspecialists who are involved in the interventional treatment of neurologic disorders, to foster scientific research in the field of cerebrovascular and interventional neurology through internal collaboration and collaboration with other groups, to raise awareness and disseminate knowledge concerning developments in vascular and interventional neurology, to promote and improve the training of vascular and interventional neurology in teaching programs in collaboration with other organizations, and to address practice issues faced by specialists who are involved in the interventional treatment of neurologic disorders.2

2.What is the history behind neurologists performing neuroendovascular procedures?
The first cerebral angiogram was performed by a neurologist originally from Portugal named Egaz Moniz in 1927. Interestingly, Moniz did receive the Nobel prize in 1949, not for his work on cerebral angiography but rather for his work on frontal leucotomy.3 Initially, some neurologists performed cerebral angiograms by direct carotid puncture to diagnose tumors and mass effect, and pneumoencephalograms for similar indications. Radiology started dominating the practice of performing diagnostic cerebral angiography since the advent of transfemoral catheterization approaches in the 1970s. Both radiologists and neurosurgeons started performing neuroendovascular procedures in the early 1990s. However, early case reports of intra-arterial thrombolysis in the 1980s rekindled an interest in this field for neurologists. Neurologists performing interventional procedures was first advocated by Kori in an article published in 1993 entitled, “Interventional neurology: a specialty whose time has come.”4 Although pioneer neurologists like Camilo R. Gomez performed neuroendovascular procedures, formal participation of neurologists started with 2 neurologists, Adnan I Qureshi and Edgard Periera, entering into neuroendovascular fellowships in 1998. Before this, neurologists who wanted to enter interventional neuroradiology required a second residency in radiology. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) formalized the eligibility of neurologists to train in endovascular surgical neuroradiology (ESN) in 2003. As of January 2008, there are about 50 neurologists in the United States who have completed formal training in this field.

3.What are the similarities and differences between the 3 subspecialties of interventional neuroradiology, ESN, and interventional neurology?
Physicians trained in these subspecialties undergo similar fellowship training programs in minimally invasive neuroendovascular procedures. The basic principle of all endovascular procedures (regardless of specialty) involves percutaneous entry into the femoral, radial, or brachial artery. Guide catheters or sheaths are introduced through the aorta into the supra-aortic vessel of interest. Microcatheters, balloon catheters, and stent delivery devices are introduced through the guide catheter and guided to the target lesion with flexible microwires. Advanced designs of microcatheters including flow-directed microcatheters have allowed highly selective delivery of coils, embolic materials, and drugs into regions of interest.4

However, the main differences lie in the residency training that qualify candidates for the advanced training. Interventional neuroradiologists undergo residency training in radiology, endovascular neurosurgeons undergo residency training in neurosurgery, and interventional neurologists undergo residency training in neurology. In an attempt to create a single name for physicians trained within this field, the ACGME decided to call this subspecialty ESN in 2000. The American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology has also since changed its name to the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS), which better reflects the multiple specialties who are now training in this field and becoming members of this society. A summary of the different medical organizations involved in ESN and interventional neurology training is listed in Table 1.


4.How does training in interventional neurology differ from similar training through other specialties?
The final pathway for training is a fellowship in ESN for applicants from neurology similar to applicants from neurosurgery and radiology. One year of graduate medical education in using catheter technology, radiologic imaging, and clinical expertise to diagnose and treat diseases of the central nervous system is provided. However, the pathway to the one year training in ESN differs depending upon the previous background of the applicant. For neurologists, the ACGME requires training in an accredited neurology residency (4 years, including the PGY-1 year), a vascular neurology fellowship or equivalent (1 year), preparatory neuroradiology training (1 year), and fellowship training in ESN (2 years). Similar training in radiology requires a radiology residency (5 years), diagnostic neuroradiology fellowship (1 year), and fellowship in ESN (1–2 years). Similar training in neurosurgery requires a neurosurgery residency (6–7 years), preparatory neuroradiology training (1 year), and fellowship in ESN (1 year). Some of the training requirements can be completed during the residency training.

5.What are the ACGME training requirements to be eligible for an ESN fellowship?
The ACGME approved the Guidelines for Training in ESN in June 2000.5 The program requirements for training from a neurology background were approved by the ACGME in May 2003. According to these ACGME guidelines, residents entering from a neurology background must have fulfilled the following preparatory requirements:

1. Completed an ACGME-accredited residency in neurology.
2. Completed an ACGME-accredited 1-year vascular neurology program.
3. Completed a 3-month course in basic radiology skills acceptable to the program director where the neuroradiology training will occur. The basic radiology skills and neuroradiology training may be acquired during elective time in the neurology residency.
4. Completed 3 months of clinical experience in an ACGME-accredited neurologic surgery program, which may be acquired during elective time in neurology and/or vascular neurology training.
5. Completed at least 12 months of training, preferably consecutive, in neuroradiology. Candidates who do not come from a radiology training program shall have access to a 1-year period of training in neuroradiology in the institution sponsoring the ESN program. The purpose of this preparatory year is to gain experience in performance and interpretation of diagnostic cerebral angiography.5
The basic radiology skills and neuroradiology training are meant to familiarize the trainee with percutaneous arterial access, pharmacology of contrast agents, principles of radiation physics and safety, and conceptual understanding of indications, techniques, and limitations of various radiologic diagnostic modalities. The 3 months of clinical experience in neurosurgery is meant to familiarize the trainee with the indications for various neurosurgical procedures, a conceptual understanding of techniques of various neurosurgical procedures, and basic principles of periprocedure management of these patients. Trainees are not expected to learn how to perform neurosurgical procedures. The 12 months of training in neuroradiology learning to perform and interpret diagnostic cerebral angiograms is generally incorporated as part of the first year of the NeuroInterventional fellowship.

6.What are the requirements for an ESN training program?
There are 24 ESN training programs listed on the SNIS website 6 and an additional 8 programs listed on the SVIN website.7 Unfortunately, because the publication of the ACGME guidelines (see question 3), only 4 programs have received ACGME accreditation as of January 2008. Institutional program requirements can be found at the ACGME Neurologic Surgery Program requirements website last updated on January 2008.5 Program directors require board certification by the American Board of Radiology, American Board of Neurologic Surgery, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, or possess qualifications acceptable to the residency review committee.

The ACGME document states “An adequate variety and number of ESN procedures must be available for each resident. Each program must perform at least hundred therapeutic ESN procedures per year. These procedures include the treatment of aneurysms, brain arteriovenous malformations, arteriovenous fistulas of the brain, tumors of the central nervous system, occlusive vascular diseases, revascularization, traumatic injury, maxillofacial vascular malformation, and tumors. In addition, the program must provide adequate training and experience in invasive functional testing.” The documents further states “To ensure adequate teaching supervision and evaluation of a resident's academic progress, the faculty-to-resident ratio must be at least one full-time faculty person for every resident enrolled in the program.”5

7.What are the hospital credentialing requirements to perform neuroendovascular procedures?
The credentialing requirements to perform procedures are determined by individual hospitals. The American Medical Association provides broad recommendations about hospital privileges and accreditations for procedures stating that, “Decisions regarding hospital privileges should be based upon training, experience, and demonstrated competence of candidates.”8 Hospitals are moving toward procedure-specific credentialing as competency in one neurointerventional procedure may not necessarily imply competency in others. One such example is carotid artery stent placement (CAS), which is being performed by physicians with variable levels of experience and training. Different societies have published variable training guidelines for performing CAS, ranging from 4 CAS procedures and 25 noncarotid stent procedures plus attendance at a “hands-on” course (16 hours AMA category 1 CME)9 to a minimum of 25 CAS procedures with at least half as primary operator.10

The Neurovascular Coalition Writing Group [AAN, American Association of Neurologic Surgeons, Congress of Neurologic Surgeons (CNS), American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, the American Society of Neuroradiology, and the Society of Interventional Radiology] recommend that a physician accumulates a total of 100 diagnostic cervicocerebral angiograms before postgraduate training in cervicocerebral interventional procedures, including CAS.11 However, this document did not provide guidelines on specific procedures. The SVIN and American Society of Neuroimaging have published a guideline for training in specific procedures.12 A summary of these procedure-specific guidelines can be found in Table 2. Hospitals generally require documentation of the number of procedures performed and complication rates for credentialing.



8.Will I be able to find a job after this training?
The need for interventional neurologists is growing. There has been a dramatic increase in neurons-endovascular procedures in the last decade largely driven by improvements in device technology.13 The Advisory Board Company, a health care market research firm, and Goldman Sachs Investment Research estimate that there are 2.4 million patients in the United States who can benefit from neuroendovascular procedures and predict increases in the market shares for neuroendovascular devices.14 The Brain Attack Coalition identified a neurointerventional specialist as a necessary component of a comprehensive stroke center. Surgical and endovascular techniques, including clipping and coiling of intracranial aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy, and intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy was one of the key areas identified for comprehensive stroke center designation. The statement further stated that much of what distinguishes a comprehensive from other facilities is expertise and infrastructure in 3 key areas: diagnostic radiology, endovascular therapy, and surgery because these areas were considered vital in the management of patients with complex ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The coalition also recommended that the neurointerventional specialists accrue significant experience because studies have shown that increasing experience reduces complication rates.15 All of these factors suggest there will be a need for highly trained neurointerventional specialists for future stroke centers.

9.I am interested in interventional pain management and want to train in neurology. How do I pursue a training and career in interventional pain management?
Interventional pain management in most institutions is administered by the anesthesiology department. However, more physicians training from other specialties such as physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, and psychiatry are participating in these fellowships. Fellowship training consists of 1 year of didactic training. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), which was formed in 1998, is the main voice for physicians interested in interventional pain management and offers a subspecialty board certification for the field.16 Neurologists have been training in interventional pain fellowships since the 1990s. Some neuroendovascular fellowships will include training in spine interventions, such as vertebroplasty and discography.

10.I am interested in interventional neurology. How do I get more information?
There are several websites, medical organizations, and meetings that offer information on interventional neurology. The interventional neurology section of the AAN has a yearly meeting at the annual AAN meeting that can be attended. The SVIN has a website with information and listings of some fellowship opportunities.17 The SNIS also has website with similar information.18 These organizations encourage interested persons to apply for membership. For candidates interested in ESN and who want to train in neurosurgery, the American Association of Neurologic Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurologic Surgeons (CNS) have yearly meetings.19
 
Thanks for the post, neuroir, as always very insightful :thumbup:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
btw is anyone familiar with janardhan's research in minnesota? is he really transplanting stem cells via catheters in the hope of ameliorating irrersible nerve injury...way too freaking cool
 
btw is anyone familiar with janardhan's research in minnesota? is he really transplanting stem cells via catheters in the hope of ameliorating irrersible nerve injury...way too freaking cool


They also do it at Stanford (unsure about Janardhan)
 
At Stanford, Dr Steinberg (chairman of neurosurg) is the spearhed of stem cell therapy in ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, but his experience is in stereotactic stem cell injections-directly in the brain (requires burrholes). There is currently no center in the US that is involved in clinical research with intra-arterial stem cell infusion in humans. On clinicaltrials.gov you will find the complete info. Clinical trials have begun in Brazil, UK, Russia and Spain on endovascular delivery of stem cells in the MCA. Hopefully, this would start soon in the US as well. The only center in the US, investigating, IV stem cell therapy in acute stroke is UT Houston.
 
The job market is not as rosy as Qureshi's article suggests.
 
Maybe not for INR radiologists, EB. As far as the job market for stroke-trained interventionalists is concerned, I had offers from several academic & private programs even before I began my stroke fellowship. Now with an interventional fellowship on the way, they all stand & there are several new offers coming, very good offers in every sense.

Dont try to misguide the future stroke neurologists here just because you are unhappy that many are going in interventional training. There are between 30-40 Vascular Neurologists trained every year in the entire country, not enough to keep up with the demand for them. Every Tom, Dick & Harry of a hospital is interested in opening a "Stroke Center". Quite a few of them want comprehensive services with an aggressive (vascular or neurosurgery trained) interventionalist. The demand for intervention trained stroke neurologists is extremely high, specially if one is prepared to move.

The field is pretty much closed for radiologists.........
 
Last edited:
Agree with Bonran that opportunities (academic or private practice) are good for stroke neurologists with interventional expertise as well as endovascular neurosurgeons.
 
Maybe not for INR radiologists, EB.

The field is pretty much closed for radiologists.........

Funny, considering most of the top programs (UCSF, Stanford, Hopkins, etc...) only accept radiologists or neurosurgeons, not neurologists. I find it hard to believe that people coming out of those programs won't land in a good job.
 
The top programs as far as aggresive stroke & aneurysm management & research output at stroke, NSx meetings & NIH funding are:

SUNY Buffalo (NSx)
U Minnesota (Neuro)
MCW (Neuro)
UCLA (INR)
U Pittsburgh (NSx/Neuro)
U Miami (NSx/Neuro)
U Cincinnati (NSx)
UCSF (??)
U Iowa (INR-prefers Neurologists. No NR/NSx trained here for last few yrs)
CCF (NSx/Neuro)
Harvard (INR)
BNI (NSx)

(not necessarily in that order)

All these programs have a high volume of research output if you keep up with the vascular interventional journals. All have them have quite a few R01 grants & are participating in large interventional stroke/aneurysm/avm/carotid trials. All of them have trained neurologists (some exclusively like Iowa, Minnesota, MCW), some mixed NSx & neurology (Buffalo, Miami, CCF) & very few have trained INR along with the surgeons & neurologists (UCLA, UCSF). The exclusively INR-training programs are run by old school INR people (Stanford, NW, Utah, Virginia, JH, who essentially want to keep the other specialties out of "their turf"). Their work rarely figures in the non-imaging journals & has not had any major influence on changing therapeutics of these disorders. Wash Univ. is the only major INR program which is hesitant to train neurologists (though they may have trained a couple) which has good research funding.

I have not said that the field is not rosy for INR. The INR trained fellow is stating it. Why dont you ask him about job prospects for INR trained interventionalists? All I know is that I have 5 Univ programs & numerous private hospitals across the US wanting me to come down for an interview 2 months into my fellowship.
 
Last edited:
You forgot a few top notch programs
Columbia (outstanding NSurg/NICU/stroke)
UT Houston (among the best for stroke, good neurosurgery/INR)
Thomas Jefferson (outstanding for aneurysms/AVMs)
The above programs also figure among the best funded and academically superior to many mentioned in the list.

The top programs as far as aggresive stroke & aneurysm management & research output at stroke, NSx meetings & NIH funding are:

SUNY Buffalo (NSx)
U Minnesota (Neuro)
MCW (Neuro)
UCLA (INR)
U Pittsburgh (NSx/Neuro)
U Miami (NSx/Neuro)
U Cincinnati (NSx)
UCSF (??)
U Iowa (INR-prefers Neurologists. No NR/NSx trained here for last few yrs)
CCF (NSx/Neuro)
Harvard (INR)
BNI (NSx)

(not necessarily in that order)

All these programs have a high volume of research output if you keep up with the vascular interventional journals. All have them have quite a few R01 grants & are participating in large interventional stroke/aneurysm/avm/carotid trials. All of them have trained neurologists (some exclusively like Iowa, Minnesota, MCW), some mixed NSx & neurology (Buffalo, Miami, CCF) & very few have trained INR along with the surgeons & neurologists (UCLA, UCSF). The exclusively INR-training programs are run by old school INR people (Stanford, NW, Utah, Virginia, JH, who essentially want to keep the other specialties out of "their turf"). Their work rarely figures in the non-imaging journals & has not had any major influence on changing therapeutics of these disorders. Wash Univ. is the only major INR program which is hesitant to train neurologists (though they may have trained a couple) which has good research funding.

I have not said that the field is not rosy for INR. The INR trained fellow is stating it. Why dont you ask him about job prospects for INR trained interventionalists? All I know is that I have 5 Univ programs & numerous private hospitals across the US wanting me to come down for an interview 2 months into my fellowship.
 
Yes they are good too. I was just trying to list some frontline Neuro/NSx run interventional programs. It is not a list of what specialties one can avail of while training there.
 
I wonder what influence these heated discussions are having for our medical students.

My advice to a medical student is this:

1) Decide what you would like to do aside from NIR. This "extra-personality" of yours will add to your NIR skills whereever you end up. I envision most programs in the future building a multidisciplinary NIR service (particularly if stroke interventions are actually proven useful--for now, most aggressive programs are probably too cowboyish for their patients' good...). Also, life might take you down a different path, forcing you to stay away from NIR.

Would you be happy reading MRI's rarely seeing patients? Would you be happy being a stroke neurologist, pulled into call frequently, but still not being able to buy a large sailboat? Or would you rather perform daily lumbar diskectomies and retiring at 55 after your third divorce? (Sorry for the stereotypes, but you get the picture).

2) Make your interests in NIR known from the very beginning and become close friends with the other two specialties recognizing their own strengths and weaknesses. Good neurology trained IR folks should understand that reading a brain MRI (including the ENT stuff--not just the parenchyma and vessels!) is as difficult as performing a good neurological exam. I, btw, am neurology trained. In the end, we need to work together to keep this field from going to cardiology and vascular surgeons inappropriately, and more importantly to advance treatment for our patients who unfortunately still tend to do poorly.

Neurology will stand or fall on the results of IMS III and SAMMPRIS (but mostly IMS III). So beware... Radiology is changing their training program entirely, so who knows whether they will embrace clinical training, or continue in their hard-headed ways. Neurosurgery is the only specialty that I think understands what is going on--they have made 3 mos of cerebral angiography compulsory.

Ideally, we could do a combo of all 3, or at least 2 of the above. But since we can't, pick one and work very hard. You will get hired if you are a great neuro-interventionalist regardless of how you trained.

B
 
Thanks Bonobo for the insight

I cant imagine myself being happy reading images all day long (dont have the Step 1 anyway) and after my surgery rotation, I wouldnt touch Nsurgery with a 10 ft pole

However, I love talking to patients, doing the physical exam, using my mind to problem solve and taking my time to evaluate the problem, I also can see myself doing research part time at an academic center, I also think Neurscience/Psychology is fascinating

Hence, Neurology for me and perhaps NIR down the line

:thumbup:
 
I have no problem with neurosurgons and neurologists training in INR. But the field is by no means closed to radiologists -- what a ridiculous statement.

Don't get me wrong -- there are jobs out there. The point I was making is that finding the right job once you are INR trained (any base specialty) is not that simple. Yes there are lots of jobs out there in our base specialties... but we need to maintain proficiency ie need access to a high volume and varied case mix. A regular stroke neurology job (with IA therapy) is not an appropriate job for an INR specialist coming from neurology background, neither is a general radiology/IR job (on call INR) appropriate for an INR radiologist. Many places want someone to handle on call stroke and the odd ruptured aneurysm but do not want to support a full-fledged vascular program. IMHO This is not be appropriate for a recent grad trying to establish and maintain skills.
 
Neurologist & neurosurgeons who train in ESR (INR) practice all aspects of the specialty. There is no such thing as a stroke-trained-INR (practicing just IA/mechanical therapy) nor a Neurosurgery-trained INR (doing just aneurysms, AVMs, tumors & fistulae). So, I dont know what the point in your arguement is?

Besides, they have trained at high volume centers & end up taking jobs at other centers with potential for high volume patients in their specialty as well as back up support of Neurosurgery, NICU, Neuroimaging & Stroke Neurology. No one ends up in a peripheral hospital with a uniplanar angio room & a catheter in their hand to do CNS procedures.
 
I had offers from several academic & private programs even before I began my stroke fellowship. Now with an interventional fellowship on the way, they all stand & there are several new offers coming, very good offers in every sense.


So all of your previous and current offers, including the stroke jobs, include opportunity for a full endovascular practice -- great congrats to you.

For everyone else considering entering this field from any background, the reality is that when you enter a highly specialized field like INR/ESNR, it takes work to find a good job. Lots of places would love to have you but you must make sure they have the resources to support a solid INR practice. Since you are qualified in your base specialty, it is easy to be tempted by very appealing offers which do not afford as much INR practice as may be appropriate especially in the ealry years of practice.

And finally I have to say: Bonran, you seem like a disagreeable individual -- no idea why you are so jaded against radiologists. I am thankful that the colleagues I work with from neurology and neurosurgery and with whom I share call are nothing like you.
 
You are trying to draw me into another mud slinging match, which I have no interest to get into. The truth of the matter is there are several jobs for clinically trained cerebrovascular interventionalists coming from Neurology & Neurosurgery. The field is growing.
The programs they train in have a lot of innovative ways of treating cerebrovascular disorders of all sorts beyond the current FDA guidelines thus exposing trainees to future trends. There are several large NIH/NINDS funded studies that these programs recruit to.

Goodbye
 
Last edited:
A number of radiology programs directly recruit foreign-trained radiology residents to fellowship programs/faculty and give them a free pass into the US healthcare system - Where is the outrage among the US medical students/radiology residents?
 
Kind of want to revive this thread... but not interested in grudge matches between the base specialties.

For those of you that were previous trainees and are out in practice now, would you care to discuss how things are going in the field? There's significant interest in this field, but not much relevant or recent information on training programs, practice models, compensation, job markets, compensation, etc.

I've been trying to stay updated by reading the publications, but some anecdotal information would be nice too.
 
Most of our NIRs on this site are probably too busy on call to participate in these discussions. :(
 
There aren't many neuroIR people on the neuro forum frequently. You might get more nibbles in neurosurgery or rads. There will always be a role for neuroIR. The question is whether the current number of licensed practitioners and practice/reimbursement models will support the status quo into the more distant future. People spend a lot of time talking about stroke Rx, and that can make up a large part of some neuroIR people's practices, but it's not the only way to do business, and not by a long shot the only thing neuroIR physicians can do.
 
TN, I know we have talked before about NCC fellowship. Do you have any idea exactly HOW competitive IR fellowships are for neurologists? From radiology or neurosurgery, it seems that most people say you can walk into it. How about from neurology?
 
About 5 or so people I trained with at my program have done NCC or stroke and gone on to neuroIR fellowships thereafter. You need to be likable and committed, and it wouldn't hurt to have some research to distinguish yourself, but you don't have to be a unicorn or anything. Leveraging connections greatly improves your chances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I will strive to be the most glorious unicorn of them all!
 
i keep hearing that NeuroIR trained neurologists are paid much less than those doing NIR from radiology or neurosurgery. Is this valid in many places?
 
Shouldn't be. Reimbursement for a procedure you are credentialed to do should not depend on the manner in which you were trained. I can bill critical care time the same way a MICU or SICU or burnICU or traumaICU or cardiacICU doctor can. Should be no different for neuroIR, unless people are restricting their angio suite time in a way which is biased by the way they are trained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most of our NIRs on this site are probably too busy on call to participate in these discussions. :(

After negative or futile trials in three interventions (IC stenosis, AVMs, acute stroke) I suspect they are busy preparing resumes.

i keep hearing that NeuroIR trained neurologists are paid much less than those doing NIR from radiology or neurosurgery. Is this valid in many places?

Shouldn't be. Reimbursement for a procedure you are credentialed to do should not depend on the manner in which you were trained.

I'm sorry TN, but your answer was not germane. The question is about salary, not procedural reimbursement. Those are two separate numbers, issues, and should be treated as such. Sure, you get reimbursed the same on the rare occasions that any neuro-IR person actually does something 'necessary.' The indications are becoming less and less clear and flow to the cath lab is getting more and more stenotic.

But aside from that, think about the actual day to day of a radiologist, n-surgeon, and a neurologist who are all neuro-IR trained. A radiologist who churns through normal head CT's at 50 bucks a 5 min pop will make more than a neurologist who is seeing a 15-20 min follow up stroke prevention patient at about 120. Because math. And salary follows. Entirely not fair, because a neurologist who explains and prevents a stroke is doing disproportionate good work for the system as a whole, but that's the way things go.

Neurology residents: this field is very scary. There have been calls for moratoriums on new fellows because of the glut in supply and falling indications. Gone are the days when you would take a completed stroke at 6 hours to the cath lab to chase an M2 occlusion. Gone as well: the M1 stenosis in an uncontrolled DM/HTN patient right to cath for a stent. Gone, but not forgotten - by me. The field was a swamp, now it is draining.
 
The salary for people not in 100% IR practices probably does differ, as you would be reimbursed based on whatever it is you are doing when you're not in the angio suite. Most likely this means NSG>NR>Neurology; though some stroke/NCC specialists make $$$$.

Not convinced, however, that the field is dead or dying. One cannot deny the negative trials (IMS-III, SAMMPRIS, etc.) have definitely hindered the definitive usage of these techniques. There are however, still many promising trials being conducted (SWIFT-PRIME, for example), and the technology is advancing at a rapid rate.

The future is uncertain, and so the people who are dedicated and passionate about this field must contribute to this research. I think people continue to strongly believe in it because they have seen first-hand how amazing and life-changing these procedures can be (count me among them). It's a relatively new field, and there's plenty of room for advancement. Acute stroke is only one fragment of the field - obviously, if intervention is proven to improve outcomes in this, the field will explode; this just hasn't happened yet.

As far as moratoriums - yes there was that article in AJNR about discontinuing fellowships. From what I hear, the job market is tight. I personally haven't heard any horror stories about new fellows unable to find positions - though my knowledge on this is limited.
 
I would just add that it's not like the neurology trained IR folks are just seeing patients in clinic and waiting for stroke cases to come in. Most of them are coiling aneurysms and such, which probably gets their salary close to NSG and NR.

I'm a believer in these procedures as well and remain convinced the trials will be positive once we get the symptom onset to recanalization times down.

I'm skeptical, however, that a positive trial would lead to an explosion in the field similar to cardiology. I just think the number of cases will remain fairly limited in scope. Here's an article that lays out the supply and demand issues for IR and vascular neurology quite well.
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/44/3/822.long
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks for the article! I think what I meant is that every hospital will rush even faster to obtain interventional stroke physicians as opposed to physicians trained in the whole gamut of procedures. Not really sure what that means as far as training goes in the future. But this is all hypothetical speculation... first things first, lets get these studies done!
 
I'm sorry TN, but your answer was not germane. The question is about salary, not procedural reimbursement. Those are two separate numbers, issues, and should be treated as such. Sure, you get reimbursed the same on the rare occasions that any neuro-IR person actually does something 'necessary.' The indications are becoming less and less clear and flow to the cath lab is getting more and more stenotic.

Your assumptions are only true under a specific practice model -- one that I have yet to see. The neuro-trained neuroIR people I know, and there are many, don't spend their non-IR time sitting around and staffing ED consults. All of their clinical practice is driven by IR, either in clinic seeing referrals for tumor embo, giant aneurysms, AVMs, dAVFs, etc, or performing these procedures. If you really think that there is no data behind tumor embolization, endovascular management of ruptured aneurysms, closing CCFs, or takedown of AVMs, then I guess we don't really have much to talk about.

When these people are on call, which is very often at my facility, they are doing diagnostic angios on ICH/IVH/SAH patients, smasmolysis for SAH VSP, etc. There are many more diagnostic angios performed than there are interventions. I know a few neuro-trained IR folks that still attend in the neuroICU for a few weeks a year, but that's only because the RVU-dense nature of ICU time makes at least a little sense in terms of pulling them out of the suite.

I think some individuals can get a warped idea of what these people do all day because of the high profile controversy of IA stroke care. Less than 5% of our angio suite time is related to stroke cases. That was true before IMS3 and it's true now because of SWIFT-PRIME. Maybe there are places out there that are taking every stroke to IA and sitting on their hands for the rest of the week, but at a quaternary care facility, there are enough regional, national, and international referrals for complex neurovascular issues that these cases dwarf the few cases a week that meet criteria for endovascular stroke care (which in my humble opinion should only be occurring within the constraints of a clinical trial).

I'm not arguing that people should be flocking to this field, and our group has been very conservative about training and hiring. There are not many hospitals out there with a referral base as large as ours. But there certainly are places where neuroIR folks are indistinguishable from each other in terms of their route of training, both in privileges as well as remuneration.
 
TN, do you have any inside hints on what the results of SWIFT-PRIME show thus far? Haven't been able to find anything searching through online databases. I also understand if you're not allowed to disclose information if you're directly involved in this study...

Man, what it would be like working with Rabinov, Yoo, Hirsch, and Mazwi... can't imagine that Mazwi ever sleeps since I've heard he attends regularly on ICU service there.
 
Your assumptions are only true under a specific practice model -- one that I have yet to see. The neuro-trained neuroIR people I know, and there are many, don't spend their non-IR time sitting around and staffing ED consults. All of their clinical practice is driven by IR, either in clinic seeing referrals for tumor embo, giant aneurysms, AVMs, dAVFs, etc, or performing these procedures. If you really think that there is no data behind tumor embolization, endovascular management of ruptured aneurysms, closing CCFs, or takedown of AVMs, then I guess we don't really have much to talk about.

You have yet to see a model of incentive based salaries in which salary correlates with what you bring in? I guess you are in a different model. In the model I work in, salary is a percent of total clinical and research income. Overhead gets taken out, then what you get is what you get. Much better. Of course, we're a small group. In neuro-IR, the salaries much dwarf the professional fees, so they must be taking from the technical components, but still it is hard to see how they could possibly be breaking even.

Yes, it is now much less clear that AVMs need to be "taken down." There is now data to suggest that these procedures harm. Aruba was stopped early, and I know it has problems, but when the only clinical trial looking at a surgery is this negative, then the surgery must be reconsidered. I don't think there's much data in this field and what data there is - is bad.

The paper cited above was very interesting. I'd like to thank you for posting it. Think how horrible this is:

In contrast, there appears to be an excess supply of NIs relative to the projected demand for the interventions they can perform.25,26 There are currently ≈800 practicing NIs17 and 83 active neurointerventional fellowship programs in the United States, producing up to 100 new NIs each year.26 It is difficult to accurately measure the demand for neurointerventional procedures, but the best estimate for total number of annual aneurysm embolizations is ≈20 000,26,27 and for endovascular ischemic stroke treatment, it is ≈11 000.26 After accounting for other interventional treatment cases, such as embolization of arteriovenous malformations and carotid artery stenting, the total annual volume of neurointerventional procedures may be around 40 000. This translates into 50 procedures per year per NI. Arguably, the demand for NIs may increase over time, but the most aggressive models cap the maximum number of procedures at 90 000 per year.27 Even if the number of NIs were to remain stable at 800, this would result in only 112 procedures per year per NI. However, many of those optimistic predictions were based on expectations of advances in interventional techniques, such as angioplasty and stenting in extracranial and intracranial vessels, or treatment of aneurysms or vascular malformations.28 The results of some recent clinical trials would suggest otherwise. For example, the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial did not demonstrate any clear advantage of intracranial stenting over medical prevention,29 the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial showed equipoise between carotid angioplasty and carotid endarterectomy,30 and the interventional management of stroke trial had to be stopped prematurely because of futility. Thus, the anticipated increase in neurointerventional procedures may not happen, which has led some to propose the discontinuation of all neurointerventional training.26

Regardless, a perpetual oversupply of NIs has the potential to lead to other problems. Specifically, more patients will be treated by neurologists and other providers with lower patient volumes and less experience. Also, low volumes will create increasing pressure for NIs to lower their threshold for intervening, altering their standards for medically necessary interventions at the risk of providing inappropriate and costly treatment at best, or increasing chance of medical errors at worst. This phenomenon has been observed in several other specialties, including interventional cardiology,31 where changes in medical necessity criteria resulted in an increase in the number of procedures, increased costs but no apparent improvement in patient outcomes. Of course, NIs may not view the exchange from this perspective, preferring to see that the marginal benefits delivered to patients who otherwise may forego care.31 Arguably, the regulators and administrators of the health reform era may be less inclined to support expanded definitions of medical necessity, and will place greater emphasis on offering more cost-effective, noninvasive forms of care.31

- Here

This gets at your point about people not sitting around. We're tethered to our personal experience, which generates huge biases. At your institution, they are busy. You make mention of this, but I'll tell you that outside a quaternary care place, there isn't a lot of action. Even if the numbers above are pessimistic, with an average between the realism and optimism, we're at 80 cases a year. most the neuro-trained IR people I know personally are scrounging for work. At conferences I have been asked if we are hiring. No. Perhaps inside high ivy towers, but then you get screwed and have to take a tax for the honor of working there, but at least you'll be protected and busy.
 
Neglect are you NeuroIR?

Also, how realistic is it for ACGME to crack down on programs that are not accredited? To me this seems like the only way to control the saturation of the field? There are only 4 accredited programs that I can think of... MCW, WUSTL, CCF, UMinn. I guess I'm a little surprised that the other powerhouse programs haven't jumped through the ACGME hoops yet and the governing bodies (SNIS, SVIN) haven't cracked down in light of this data. Cheap labor?

*Edit* I apologize for my constant stream of questions on the topic. It's hard to engage in discussions on this topic without turf issues, rivalries, and ethical dilemmas thrown into the mix so I've just been soaking up this information. Thanks for your contributions.
 
Neglect are you NeuroIR?

Also, how realistic is it for ACGME to crack down on programs that are not accredited? To me this seems like the only way to control the saturation of the field? There are only 4 accredited programs that I can think of... MCW, WUSTL, CCF, UMinn. I guess I'm a little surprised that the other powerhouse programs haven't jumped through the ACGME hoops yet and the governing bodies (SNIS, SVIN) haven't cracked down in light of this data. Cheap labor?

*Edit* I apologize for my constant stream of questions on the topic. It's hard to engage in discussions on this topic without turf issues, rivalries, and ethical dilemmas thrown into the mix so I've just been soaking up this information. Thanks for your contributions.

I am most def not neuro-IR. I have no dog in this race. Full disclosure, however, is that I've been horrified by the abuses I've seen, where the data is utterly disregarded and these patients and their families are told that these interventions are lifesaving technologies, when, in fact, no data to support the claims exists. I see this as an abuse of power and trust and, yes, I do take an economic view on it. So I see this through utterly cynical eyes.

I am encouraged, however, because some of the absolutely indefensible practices (really, we knew too much to do some of the nonsense of opening up M1 occlusions on wake up strokes in 95 year olds with early ischemic changes) have stopped. So I'm happy about that. But I still see borderline angios for dx, and cases where I question things.

As far as the ACGME is concerned, I have no idea. Neither do the guys from Iowa. The field is destined to be overpopulated by doctors for a good long while until the market corrects things.
 
My point was that the neuro-trained and IR-trained individuals at my institution have very similar procedural volumes, and because these procedures make up the vast majority of their billing volume, they stand to generate very similar RVUs -- it's not like a neuro person gets reimbursed less for each diagnostic angio. This would not be true if IR made up only 30% of their billing.

I do agree that each regional hospital does not need to have an neuroIR team at the ready. There just aren't enough patients out there that need these procedures on a daily basis, and the accumulating data seems to support restricting the use of these procedures rather than expanding them. Putting a phalanx of interventionalists out into the wild and relying on their own recognizance to be data-driven and still make a living off their procedural volume is not a long-term tenable business model. There are some great people at big centers that are very academic and pure in their pursuits, but they can afford to be because their volume is still good even if they keep to the evidence-base. As the available volume goes down, interests start to conflict and practitioners need to be more and more disciplined to avoid mission creep. Not everyone is capable of that degree of introspection.
 
Top