Best Vascular Neurology/Stroke fellowship??

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

area postrema

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
I know similar threads have been posted in the past, but it was several years ago. I would like to renew the discussion of the best programs to train at for vascular neurology.

Please post strengths and weaknesses of each program you mention.

First Question: what are the best interventional programs for training neurologists?.... Cleveland Clinic, U. Minnesota, UCLA, Pitt, etc.?

Members don't see this ad.
 
From a previous post:
1st tier:
Stroke+ Tele+ Intervention (neurologists) group:
U Cincinnati, UCLA, UT-Houston, U Miami, UPMC, MGH, Case Western

Stroke + epidemiology group
Columbia, UT Houston, U Miami, UCSF, Mayo

2nd tier:
Stroke + TCDs +Tele
MCG, Barrow Institute, UT-South Western
-----------------------------------------------
There is no 'best interventional' fellowship for neurologists. This is a very new subspeciality and most above mentioned programs (and others) are high volume. It is important and more practical to get into an interventional spot. For neurologists- they should get training at a high end vascular neuro or NICU program.
 
I would also add-
Miami, Case western are still not in the same league as the other five - U Cincinnati, UCLA, UT Houston, MGH, UPMC- even though they have big names - because the big names have only recently moved to these places. The other five are well established with 'big names' that have been there for a long time. Also the level of translational research at the other five is exceptional.
I would also consider Stanford and UCSF as very good programs.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
UNC has about 900 acute stroke cases a year, which is quite a bit. Not sure it would be in the same league as the 5 that have already been listed.
 
Last edited:
Is Pitt really that good of a program? Is it really thought that highly of on a national/international level? Can anyone comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program?

I know UT-Houston, with Grotta, has a great rep. But the facilities there sound like crap, and they are busting at the seams. And they seem to scut out their fellows.

I think Case will be spectacular, with Furlan et al moving from Cleveland Clinic.

Sacco is at Miami, but agreed, their program leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Pitt is an excellent program, but VERY-VERY busy and somewhat malignant. From my interview experience last year, had I decided to do just stroke fellowship with special interest in epidemiology research - I would choose UCSF above all because of Clay Johnston. if my research interest was in acute stroke management, then Cincy tops the list as Joe Broderick runs the IMS III, perhaps the most important clinical trial in acute stroke management today. If stroke fellowship is just a necessary step towards a neurointerventional career, then Iowa, Minnesota, Pitt, MCW, Miami, Cinci, UT Houston, Case are all excellent and very neurology-friendly (well, Cinci just warmed up). Less neuro-friendly, but great IR programs nonetheless are UCLA (trained a few) and Partners (trained 1 neurologist as far as I know). Their stroke fellowships are also top-notch. Stanford has a great program as well with good (but not overwhelming) exposure of a stroke fellow to neurocritical care. I've heard mixed things about UCSD and never interviewed there.




Is Pitt really that good of a program? Is it really thought that highly of on a national/international level? Can anyone comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program?

I know UT-Houston, with Grotta, has a great rep. But the facilities there sound like crap, and they are busting at the seams. And they seem to scut out their fellows.

I think Case will be spectacular, with Furlan et al moving from Cleveland Clinic.

Sacco is at Miami, but agreed, their program leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Last edited:
When you say it is "malignant", what exactly do you mean?

What do you mean by VERY VERY busy?


Thanks.
 
If you are looking for 'outstanding' stroke programs then they would be busy. I can speak for some from first hand experience to 'set the record straight' because I saw some 'not so good comments' regarding some programs. I won't of course comment on the ones I didn't like because things might have changed.
UPMC has great research in 'thrombolytic' therapy and tremendous volume (read clinical exposure) as well as telemedicine with great facilities. Wechsler has a great name and was one of the early guys instrumental in opening the way for neurologists to go endovascular.
UT Houston: Grotta and Yatsu are great names. Have largest volume of IV and endovascular cases. 'Not malignant' and yes fellows do not do scut. They have great facilities with the largest telemedicine and 'robotic telemedicine program'. Fellows are provided with a laptop with 'robot control' that they can use even from home. Also cutting edge research in 'thrombolytics', 'clotbust' and 'stem cell therapy'.
All 'budding stroke docs'- if you are into acute treatment then the places mentioned are all outstanding. If you are a stroke epidemiology then consider- Mayo clinic, Columbia, Duke, etc.
 
Stroke fellowship=2 choices

1. Columbia

2. UT Houston

(I'm at neither of those programs so I have no bias)
 
Thanks for the comments.

Would you rather go to UPMC or UT-Houston or Cleveland Clinic?
 
Hey everyone! Just wanted to chime in and say a few things regarding UT Houston. It is an extremely well rounded program in neurology with tons of neurosurgical, interventional, and clinical experience in all of the major subspecialties with the exception of neuroinfectious disease and cognitive/behavioral neurology. Jim Grotta is the chair and has done amazing things for the program (neuro and stroke fellowship.) Someone made a comment on the facilities; by no means at all are they outdated or crappy. Memorial Hermann Hospital is definitly on top and happens to spoil everyone who works there because the technology and facilities are easy and top notch. The stroke unit is a 15 bed unit that is separate from the floor, a neurotrauma ICU which is separate, a neuro intermediate unit, EMU, all separate. So the space and number of beds are huge plus trained nurses that are familiar with neuro stuff. UT Houston tends to be "pioneerish" or "cowboy"-like when it comes to intervential stuff and tpa. They have a low threshold for utilizing these options. The rest of the stroke staff are great too (plus a strong neurosonology group.) I hope this gives you a little insight, but I encourage you to visit.
 
What are the best residencies to go to if one is interested in interventional neuro? Thanks!
 
If you want to do neurology pathway, then UCLA, Pittsburgh, Cleveland Clinic, Columbia.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hey everyone! Just wanted to chime in and say a few things regarding UT Houston. It is an extremely well rounded program in neurology with tons of neurosurgical, interventional, and clinical experience in all of the major subspecialties with the exception of neuroinfectious disease and cognitive/behavioral neurology. Jim Grotta is the chair and has done amazing things for the program (neuro and stroke fellowship.) Someone made a comment on the facilities; by no means at all are they outdated or crappy. Memorial Hermann Hospital is definitly on top and happens to spoil everyone who works there because the technology and facilities are easy and top notch. The stroke unit is a 15 bed unit that is separate from the floor, a neurotrauma ICU which is separate, a neuro intermediate unit, EMU, all separate. So the space and number of beds are huge plus trained nurses that are familiar with neuro stuff. UT Houston tends to be "pioneerish" or "cowboy"-like when it comes to intervential stuff and tpa. They have a low threshold for utilizing these options. The rest of the stroke staff are great too (plus a strong neurosonology group.) I hope this gives you a little insight, but I encourage you to visit.

UT Houston: Grotta and Yatsu are great names. Have largest volume of IV and endovascular cases. 'Not malignant' and yes fellows do not do scut. They have great facilities with the largest telemedicine and 'robotic telemedicine program'. Fellows are provided with a laptop with 'robot control' that they can use even from home. Also cutting edge research in 'thrombolytics', 'clotbust' and 'stem cell therapy'.

Since the two of you are familiar with UT Houston, I am curious if the stroke fellows have the possibility of being trained in interventional neurology as well? Or is that done through radiology/neurosurg?
 
From what I remember, two of the fellows at UT Houston also trained in neuroendovascular and are now faculty at Baylor and UAB. And their website also mentions the 'optional interventional neuroradiology track'.
 
UT Houston has not really sent anybody to interventional. They really push acute stroke, not intervention.

For a neurologist to go to intervention, one should go to Pittsburgh, Cleveland Clinic, UCSF, or Columbia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
UT Houston has not really sent anybody to interventional. They really push acute stroke, not intervention.

For a neurologist to go to intervention, one should go to Pittsburgh, Cleveland Clinic, UCSF, or Columbia.


UCSF has only trained one interventional neurologist to-date, an internal MD/PhD resident. Randall Higashida et al (INR at UCSF) are not neurology-friendly at all and UCSF stroke program is designed to produce future leaders in clinical stroke research, NOT interventionalists
 
UCSF has only trained one interventional neurologist to-date, an internal MD/PhD resident. Randall Higashida et al (INR at UCSF) are not neurology-friendly at all and UCSF stroke program is designed to produce future leaders in clinical stroke research, NOT interventionalists


So which ones train interventionalists? I could not find info about Houston. What about MGH? Minnesota?
 
Houston does not train interventionalists from the neurology route.

Cleveland Clinic, Pittsburgh.... I think even Miami may do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
how do you think this program ranks among others ?
 
MGH has in the past, and I see no bias against them. One of the neurointerventional attendings here did neuro, then neuroICU, then neuroIR. He attends in the ICU and does cases as well.

Hope that helps.
 
does anyone know someone who's currently at U of MN?
how is the fellowship ...malignant?
what about the faculty...nice? I came across really bad stuff about the residency program and the some of the faculty there in general ..in this forum itself..i wonder if its really true ....i am about to join them ....plz advice.
 
does anyone know someone who's currently at U of MN?
how is the fellowship ...malignant?
what about the faculty...nice? I came across really bad stuff about the residency program and the some of the faculty there in general ..in this forum itself..i wonder if its really true ....i am about to join them ....plz advice.

PM missneurotic. That forum member seems to know quite a bit about the UMinn neurology program and might be able to answer your questions.
 
I would take any excessively negative information about UMN programs with a grain of salt. A few months ago an overzealous fellowship applicant nicknamed "Bonran" was on a mission here to rant about the UMN and MCW VN and ESN fellowships, accusing them of religious profiling hiring exclusively muslims (my disclosures - I am a West Coast interventional fellow and I am an agnostic) which is complete nonsence. That forum member got banned and shortly thereafter someone called "missneurotic" appeared (may very well be the same person). In general, if someone is trying very hard to post negative reviews about the program, it may be something personal and completely subjective.

I interviewed at UMN for stroke and neurointerventional fellowships and had a very pleasant experience. I just don't like cold winters. What is true, is that Dr Qureshi (UMN) works his fellows very hard. But which neurointerventional program doesn't? :) My 0.02




PM missneurotic. That forum member seems to know quite a bit about the UMinn neurology program and might be able to answer your questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would take any excessively negative information about UMN programs with a grain of salt. A few months ago an overzealous fellowship applicant nicknamed "Bonran" was on a mission here to rant about the UMN and MCW VN and ESN fellowships, accusing them of religious profiling hiring exclusively muslims (my disclosures - I am a West Coast interventional fellow and I am an agnostic) which is complete nonsence. That forum member got banned and shortly thereafter someone called "missneurotic" appeared (may very well be the same person). In general, if someone is trying very hard to post negative reviews about the program, it may be something personal and completely subjective.

I interviewed at UMN for stroke and neurointerventional fellowships and had a very pleasant experience. I just don't like cold winters. What is true, is that Dr Qureshi (UMN) works his fellows very hard. But which neurointerventional program doesn't? :) My 0.02



Point taken. Your right in not being able to fully understand someone's motives when they talk negatively about a program. I just thought "drbigs" might want to ask the other forum member some questions about the program to get their opinion.

Now that you mention what happened awhile back about "Bonran" I kinda remember all of that drama. I had completely forgotten about that. I think that was the most drama this forum has seen in a long time. lol
 
point taken guys.thanks for the input.after all its just one person and who knows what the motive is.I am gonna disregard the information.After all the faculty there is doing great stuff in the field of stroke intervention....I'd definitely want to be a part of it and learn and if it comes with a bit of thread attached with it , I'd rather take it rather than let the opportunity pass me by.
 
Houston does not train interventionalists from the neurology route.

Cleveland Clinic, Pittsburgh.... I think even Miami may do it.

Houston DOES train interventional neurologists. For a complete list, look through similar threads. There are many many more programs that do.
 
I can tell you from first hand experience that UT Houston does train neurologists in intervention. (Disclosures: stroke fellow at a well known program in the south!!!!). As someone in neuroendovascular training, I would also add that they have neurointerventional fellows signed up for the next 3 years (including 1 neurosurgeon and 2 neurologists). The program is well rounded with interventionalists from a neurosurgery as well as neurology background. There are tons of cases (it is after all in Texas med center).
This hopefully should clear all doubts for AHillock and areapostrema.
REALITY: You have to work hard during the fellowship training and like UCLA, MGH and Pittsburgh, if there is a good hard working internal candidate, then he/she does get priority.
Regarding UMN: I have a great deal of respect for Dr Qureshi and his group, and the kind of work they have done. I have interviewed there for stroke and have also met people from his group on a few occasions. I am very sure that the person who is spreading false rumours about UMN has a motive.
 
I will be applying to vascular neurology fellowships soon.

Can anyone comment on the most up-to-date info on the following programs:

Case
Cleveland Clinic
Cincinnati
Ohio State
West Virginia
U. Pittsburgh
Allegheny General

I have a strong preference to stay in the Ohio/WV/Western PA area.

Thank you for your input.
 
I will be applying to vascular neurology fellowships soon.

Can anyone comment on the most up-to-date info on the following programs:

Case
Cleveland Clinic
Cincinnati
Ohio State
West Virginia
U. Pittsburgh
Allegheny General

I have a strong preference to stay in the Ohio/WV/Western PA area.

Thank you for your input.

In the Ohio/WV/Western PA area (among the above mentioned programs): Cincinnati = U Pittsburgh (excellent and outstanding) > Case (great program with great faculty recently moved from CCF) > CCF > others.
Case is great but Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are a shade better because of a longer h/o innovation and excellence. At Case, faculty are also excellent and it would be great to train with Dr Furlan, but his entire team recently moved from CCF.
 
IMHO, Cincinnati has the best stroke fellowship in the country and I would definitely stay there as a fellow had I not disliked the city so much. Joe Broderick runs the IMS III and Dawn Kleindorfer, Matt Flaherty, Brett Kisella and Pooja Khatri are all big or up-and-coming names in the world of stroke. If you don't mind covering 17 hospitals while on-call (only for acute stroke) and want to stay in Ohio, I would not hesitate to consider UC very seriously. Pittsburgh and Case are very good as well, I know nothing about the other three programs but I would not even consider them if you are a strong applicant and like research.
 
IMHO, Cincinnati has the best stroke fellowship in the country and I would definitely stay there as a fellow had I not disliked the city so much. Joe Broderick runs the IMS III and Dawn Kleindorfer, Matt Flaherty, Brett Kisella and Pooja Khatri are all big or up-and-coming names in the world of stroke. If you don't mind covering 17 hospitals while on-call (only for acute stroke) and want to stay in Ohio, I would not hesitate to consider UC very seriously. Pittsburgh and Case are very good as well, I know nothing about the other three programs but I would not even consider them if you are a strong applicant and like research.

:eek: Wow that is hard core. How many fellows are in the program to share call?
 
Does anyone know the intricacies of the CCF program and the UPMC program?

I heard UPMC covers like 13 to 15 hospitals, and fellows cover all while on-call plus respond in-person (i.e. first call) to 4 different hospitals --- is this true? How about at CCF?

What about Henry Ford stroke program?

Thanks.
 
:eek: Wow that is hard core. How many fellows are in the program to share call?

Every faculty member shares the call along with the fellows. Besides, call is the main clinical responsibility of the fellow, they are not reduced to senior residents, i.e. most of the year they do not round, increase Simvastatins from 40mg qpm to 80 mg qpm, switch Aspirin to Aggrenox etc (unless these are the patients they see in clinic). They cover those hospitals ONLY for acute stroke cases, see the patients, determine the need for thrombolysis, help enrolling them in a study (if appropriate) and write a short note. The rest is done by the inpatient team, which the fellows are not a part of. This was they have tons of time to do research.
 
Thought it'd be a good idea to revive this thread.
Any thoughts on CCF now and potential to pursue INR afterwards?
 
Does anyone has any insight on the UW seattle stroke fellowship?
 
UPMC was mentioned as "malignant" - what was meant by this, how busy is it? What do you guys think of the overall program?
 
can anyone comment on Stanford vs UPMC vascular neurology programs?
 
IMHO, Cincinnati has the best stroke fellowship in the country and I would definitely stay there as a fellow had I not disliked the city so much. Joe Broderick runs the IMS III and Dawn Kleindorfer, Matt Flaherty, Brett Kisella and Pooja Khatri are all big or up-and-coming names in the world of stroke. If you don't mind covering 17 hospitals while on-call (only for acute stroke) and want to stay in Ohio, I would not hesitate to consider UC very seriously. Pittsburgh and Case are very good as well, I know nothing about the other three programs but I would not even consider them if you are a strong applicant and like research.

So from doing my residency there I can tell you that while I did consider staying there I also wanted to take stroke call like the majority of programs ie from home or via telestroke. Dr. Broderick, Kissella, Khatri, Kleidorfer are all fantastic stroke docs and people. Covering 17 hospitals on call (which is quite often for fellows) is insane as you do have to physically drive to all of them (minus 2 or 3) if you are treating a patient. If that does not bother you then this is the place to be. You will not find a more congenial group of people or a more supportive environment. 75% protected research time (minus calls of course) is unique and also indicative of the purpose of this program which is produce clinical investigators.
 
Top