Considering Fellowship Tracks...

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

TUGM

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
349
Reaction score
114
PGY-2 Year is soon coming to a close, and PGY-3 will begin, w/ NCC applications open for submission in October. Can't decide between stroke and NCC (love 'em both too much) on the road to being a catheter jockey (also considered neuromuscular, neurooncology....if only we could train forever).

Is there any benefit of doing BOTH fellowships, outside of purely satisfying your interest? Are candidates with this background at any advantage for endovascular fellowships? I guess in those extra 3 years I would have a lot of time to build a stronger research background for future academic endeavors.

Any thoughts? Also, hopefully the NCC interview impression thread kicks off again soon! Would love some updates.
 
Would not recommend vascular and ICU, especially before neuroIR. You're covering too much ground to actually apply it all reasonably in a single career, and the opportunity-cost associated with an extemporaneous fellowship is substantial. I'd say you'd be better off doing a research fellowship year, but the number of successful non-trialist neuroIR specialists who do bench research can be counted on one hand, so that's not really a useful long-term plan either. I guess if you just want to boost your application that would help, since admissions panels seem to love seeing research even if they are barely involved in it themselves.

There are ICU fellowships that give a lot of stroke experience (like MGH) which would prepare you well to manage acute stroke in all its forms in addition to being a fully fledged intensivist. But a vascular neurology fellowship is going to add outpatient secondary prevention management, longitudinal outpatient specialty care, neurosonology, stroke rehab, etc. That's fine too, but I don't see how you would merge all those things together in a career and stay on top of the latest knowledge across such broad disciplines -- especially if you ultimately want to go into NeuroIR. I know a few people who do neuroICU and neuroIR, but it takes a lot of extra work and you have to be willing to take the pay cut that goes with spending time outside the suite. At least with critical care billing the hit isn't too large. But every year I have fellowship applicants on the vascular side who think they're going to balance being a stroke doc and doing IR. It just doesn't make sense as a business model, regardless of how attractive the concept of being a comprehensive stroke physician might be.

If you're going to have an afternoon of clinic patients and you're a trained neuroIR physician, which makes more sense: a series of pre-ops for AVM takedowns and carotid stents, or a bunch of yearly follow ups for secondary stroke prevention?

This is ignoring the fact that you have jockey for table time, and you're sure as hell not going to want to give it up for your mandatory 2 weeks of inpatient stroke service ward attending duties every year. And your hospital administration probably isn't going to want that either, particularly if the group is small and they may be turning acute cases away when you are on service.

Ultimately, I know a bunch of neuro fellows from my program who have gotten neuroIR fellowships, both coming from vascular neurology or neuroICU. I certainly wouldn't pick ICU just because it seems more hard-core and therefore likely to impress. Those two years are really going to destroy you if you're not absolutely committed. Overall it seems like most of the residents going into neuroIR look for stroke programs attached to neuro-friendly neuroIR fellowships, and the cushier the program while still maintaining a good prestige, the better. I get that. It's a long road.
 
Seems like ICU would be a good deal. Let's be honest here, secondary stroke prevention is not exactly rocket science and would imagine you would be comfortable with it after a full residency in neurology. Try and find a place where you can learn to put in your own EVD in rare, but inevitable event of arterial rupture, so you don't have to wait for a neurosurgeon to come and do it. Although even that is not really a deal breaker. As long as you can perform the endovascular treatment and learn the immediate post procedure management, you will be fine.
 
Most guys doing stroke intervention are BUSY. You won't have time to manage secondary prevention when you are planning Embos, follow up angiograms, and carotid stents. Secondary prevention will be handed off to the primary doc whether internist or neurologist.
 
Thanks for the input and advice. Most of my attendings feel similarly as TN.

I still think it would ultimately lead me to be a better interventionalist if I really understand how management of these disease processes work, despite not being able to practice all the specialties. But 9 years of total training is probably overkill lol... and yes, not practical from a financial standpoint.

Just so hard to pick one when all 3 fields are so interesting!!!!!
 
There are ICU fellowships that give a lot of stroke experience (like MGH) which would prepare you well to manage acute stroke in all its forms in addition to being a fully fledged intensivist. But a vascular neurology fellowship is going to add outpatient secondary prevention management, longitudinal outpatient specialty care, neurosonology, stroke rehab, etc. That's fine too, but I don't see how you would merge all those things together in a career and stay on top of the latest knowledge across such broad disciplines -- especially if you ultimately want to go into NeuroIR. I know a few people who do neuroICU and neuroIR, but it takes a lot of extra work and you have to be willing to take the pay cut that goes with spending time outside the suite. At least with critical care billing the hit isn't too large. But every year I have fellowship applicants on the vascular side who think they're going to balance being a stroke doc and doing IR. It just doesn't make sense as a business model, regardless of how attractive the concept of being a comprehensive stroke physician might be.

This is ignoring the fact that you have jockey for table time, and you're sure as hell not going to want to give it up for your mandatory 2 weeks of inpatient stroke service ward attending duties every year. And your hospital administration probably isn't going to want that either, particularly if the group is small and they may be turning acute cases away when you are on service.

Ultimately, I know a bunch of neuro fellows from my program who have gotten neuroIR fellowships, both coming from vascular neurology or neuroICU. I certainly wouldn't pick ICU just because it seems more hard-core and therefore likely to impress. Those two years are really going to destroy you if you're not absolutely committed. Overall it seems like most of the residents going into neuroIR look for stroke programs attached to neuro-friendly neuroIR fellowships, and the cushier the program while still maintaining a good prestige, the better. I get that. It's a long road.

I'm interested to here your take on this a little further. My understanding is that regardless of your path to neuro-IR, you're not going to be in the angio suite all day because of jockeying for cases and suite time. In the past when I have discussed this, the advice I have received is to go down a path where your non-IR time is something you're also happy with because it will be a notable percentage of your career.

In that setting, it would seem to me that if you're discussing billing and opportunity cost as it relates to how you ultimately spend your time, ICU ward time would be far more valuable than stroke time, is that not the case? If you have a setup where you can do 100% IR, fine, but my impression is that setup is few and far between.

Alternatively, in non-academic settings, I'm not sure if you're more attractive as a stroke certified physician (for a CSC rating, etc), even if you are a neuro-intensivist, and that gold star trumps your billing ability in a neuroICU. Presumably, academic settings wont be clamoring for stroke certified physicians, so this would be moot in that environment. But I have no idea if this pans out in people's experience out in practice.
 
Most IR trained people want to maximize their suite time, either doing elective or urgent cases. You could join a large group with only 1 or 2 suites and I guess you'd have a lot of downtime, but why would you seek out that experience? And let's not forget that a lot of your procedures will be elective, and many will be on patients that are followed longer term with multiple aneurysms, a big AVM, menigiomas for devascularization, etc. That means significant clinic time devoted to your IR practice even when you aren't running a room. So your week can be pretty full just with IR-related stuff once you have a good referral base and an equitable chunk of suite time.

You should always do what you enjoy, and if you want to integrate more stroke into your practice when you aren't in the suite, then you could do that. The opportunity cost of that time is enormous, but it's up to you. Some places are looking for board certified vascular neurologists, but I'd be surprised if they're looking to satisfy an IR hire and a vascular neurology hire in one person. If you're hired as the only certified vascular neurologist at a CSC, then you're basically running a division and supporting the continuing CSC accreditation, in addition to your IR practice. That sounds nuts.

If you don't want to do ICU, then you shouldn't because you'll be miserable through a grueling fellowship. RVU generation in the ICU is a hell of a lot better than stroke, but still not close to what you can do procedurally as a neuroIR attending. Many neuroICU people do acute stroke and inpatient stroke care on the side, myself included, regardless of the lack of formal accreditation, even in famous medical centers. But for people looking specifically to hire a certified vascular neurologist who has a lot of outpatient training on secondary prevention and sonology, the ICU training won't sway them.

Both vascular neurologists and neurointensivists are in high demand in non-academic settings, sometimes for the same jobs, but often for different roles. In academia it's a bit different, as the major centers get more quickly saturated with neurointensivists because there are only so many unit weeks to go around. But if you're IR trained, your priority is going to be finding a good fit for your IR practice first, and then figure out the rest.

Bottom line, you're right. Nobody does "100%" suite time, just like neurosurgeons don't do 4 cases a day 6 days a week. There are other mandatory IR-related activities, including clinic, conferences, administrative duties, teaching, etc. If you do all of that and you still have more time left over, then stroke or ICU service time is a real option, particularly if you don't have enough IR patients to proceduralize, or rooms to run. But most IR guys I know would see that as a sign that they need to improve their referral base or gain access to additional time in the suite, rather than a fun opportunity to exercise their stroke chops. But we all make our own choices. You certainly aren't wrong to try to strike a balance with either stroke or ICU as you prefer.
 
@typhoonegator thank you for explanation. Can you please highlight life style as well as revenue generation aspects of Stroke vs NCC. I am interested in both, but could not choose between either.
 
NCC is on/off. When you're on, you tend to be on 24/7, but when you're off you have very little in the way of clinical workload. Being on service can be grueling and emotionally draining even with ICU fellows and resident coverage. NCC is RVU-dense, both on billable time as well as procedure load. NCC people are in high demand, but you can't just waltz in to any situation in any area of the country, even if you trained at a top program. There are definitely plenty of jobs for those interested, but sometimes these involve less than perfect city locations and sometimes a mixture of ICU and hospitalist or ICU and stroke work.

Vascular is comprised of acute call, clinic, and service time (+/- sonology reading). Clinic patients want things from you all the time, so you're in contact with your support staff very frequently. When you're on service you tend to be on 24/7, but it's not anywhere near the same as being responsible for critically ill patients, and you don't usually have to be on service for more than a month or so per year. Acute stroke call differs substantially between centers, and depending on whether there is resident and/or fellow coverage, IR services, etc. But it can be a grind, depending on how much of it you need to do. Stroke is not RVU-dense, and you tend not to do procedures. Sonology studies don't reimburse particularly well. But there are a lot of jobs out there in academia, private practice, or a mix of the two, almost anywhere in the country, particularly if you trained somewhere good.

You can live comfortably doing either, although the max revenue generation is probably higher in NCC unless you're heavily leveraged by pharma or you get a lot of hard money for administrative work. Workload varies substantially and can be tailored to your preference, although once you start doing that then you'll probably have to make sacrifices about location, salary, titles, etc.
 
Top