Neurology Trainee Attitudes Toward Neurointervention: Results From an International Survey

Abstract

Background The rapidly changing treatment landscape for large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke, now more than ever, has added to the complexity of emergent decision making and the demand for neurointerventionists. Ensuring exposure of neurology trainees to neurointervention and the availability of well‐defined pathways for those interested in this career is crucial. Here we report the results from our large survey of neurology trainee attitudes toward neurointervention training. Methods An online survey targeting trainee impressions on the current state of vascular neurology, neurocritical care, and neurointervention training was conducted as a mandatory requirement for trainee registration in the Society for Vascular and Interventional Neurology Break meeting in April 2020. Quantitative results are reported in proportions, and qualitative results are described. Chi‐square test was used to determine association between categorical variables. Results Of the 725 respondents from 49 countries who participated in this conference, 450 (62%) were trainees. A total of 30% of trainees did not have access to neurointervention training, and 40% believed that neurology residency, vascular neurology, or neurocritical care fellowship do not adequately prepare them for a career in neurointervention. A total of 237/321 (73%) trainees whose institutional neurointervention practice included neurologists or a mix of subspecialty backgrounds including a neurologist had an opportunity to spend elective time in a neurology–angiography suite compared with 49/89 (55%) if the institutional neurointervention practice consisted of neurosurgeons or radiologists alone ( P =0.001). A total of 49% of trainees each preferred the introduction of a mandatory or an elective neurointervention module during residency. A total of 60% of trainees preferred no to minimal exposure at the medical student level. Conclusions This international survey of trainees reinforces the existing gap in neurointervention exposure for neurology trainees. Inclusion of neurointervention faculty that come from a neurology training background and exposure to neurointervention will be crucial to support trainees interested in a neurointervention career pathway.