Harrigan, Mark R.

Background and importance Neurointervention is a very competitive specialty in the United States due to the limited number of training spots and the larger pool of applicants. The training standards are continuously updated to ensure solid training experiences. Factors affecting candidate(s) selection have not been fully established yet. Our study aims to investigate the factors influencing the selection process. Methods A 52-question survey was distributed to 93 program directors (PDs). The survey consisted of six categories: (a) Program characteristics, (b) Candidate demographics, (c) Educational credentials, (d) Personal traits, (e) Research and extracurricular activities, and (f) Overall final set of characteristics. The response rate was 59.1%. As per the programs’ characteristics, neurosurgery was the most involved specialty in running the training programs (69%). Regarding demographics, the need for visa sponsorship held the greatest prominence with a mean score of 5.9 [standard deviation (SD) 2.9]. For the educational credentials, being a graduate from a neurosurgical residency and the institution where the candidate's residency training is/was scored the highest [5.4 (SD = 2.9), 5.4 (SD = 2.5), respectively]. Regarding the personal traits, assessment by faculty members achieved the highest score [8.9 (SD = 1)]. In terms of research/extracurricular activities, fluency in English had the highest score [7.2 (SD = 1.9)] followed by peer-reviewed/PubMed-indexed publications [6.4 (SD = 2.2)]. Conclusion Our survey investigated the factors influencing the final decision when choosing the future neurointerventional trainee, including demographic, educational, research, and extracurricular activities, which might serve as valuable guidance for both applicants and programs to refine the selection process.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) enrolled 2502 patients between December of 2000 and mid-July of 2008. We analyzed temporal changes in outcomes for both CEA and CAS over the course of this study. Methods Enrollment was divided into 3 consecutive epochs (5 years, 14 months, and 16 months), each with approximately 834 patients ( Table ). Rates for the primary outcome of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (DSMI) and for death and stroke (DS) during the periprocedural period were calculated. Poisson regression was used to adjust rates for age, sex, dyslipidemia, and symptomatic status, all of which were found to influence outcomes. Results For CAS, there was a 26% decline in DSMI (6.2% → 4.6%) and a 35% decline in DS (5.5% → 3.6%). For both composite endpoints in CEA there was no consistent pattern ( Table ). As CREST progressed, it enrolled younger patients, more men, patients more likely to be dyslipidemic and enrolled more asymptomatic patients (all p < 0.05). Adjustment for these changes mediated the improvement in event rates for the CAS patients, and had no consistent effect on CEA event rates ( Table ). Conclusion Periprocedural safety for CAS improved over time in CREST. Changes were inconsistent for CEA. Improvements for CAS in part appear to reflect changes in patient selection related to age, sex, and risk factors, as adjustment for those variables attenuated the decline in rates. Linking rates to operator experience was not feasible because of the large number of new interventionalists and surgeons entering CREST over time.

Abstract Background Flow diversion is a common endovascular treatment for cerebral aneurysms, but studies comparing different types of flow diverters are scarce. Objective To perform a propensity score matched cohort study comparing the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and Flow Redirection Intraluminal Device (FRED) for posterior circulation aneurysms. Methods Consecutive aneurysms of the posterior circulation treated at 25 neurovascular centers with either PED or FRED were collected. Propensity score matching was used to control for age, duration of follow-up imaging, adjunctive coiling, and aneurysm location, size, and morphology; previously ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The two devices were compared for the following outcomes: procedural complications, aneurysm occlusion, and functional outcome. Results A total of 375 aneurysms of the posterior circulation were treated in 369 patients. The PED was used in 285 (77.2%) and FRED in 84 (22.8%) procedures. Aneurysms treated with the PED were more commonly fusiform and larger than those treated with FRED. To account for these important differences, propensity score matching was performed resulting in 33 PED and FRED unruptured aneurysm pairs. No differences were found in occlusion status and neurologic thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications between the two devices. The proportion of patients with favorable functional outcome was higher with FRED (100% vs 87.9%, p=0.04). Conclusion Comparative analysis of PED and FRED for the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms did not identify significant differences in aneurysm occlusion or neurologic complications. Variations in functional outcomes warrant additional investigations.

Background: Control of systolic blood pressure (SBP) after primary intracerebral hemorrhage improves outcomes. Factors determining the number of blood pressure medications (BPM) required for goal SBP<160 mm Hg at discharge are unknown. We hypothesized that higher admission-SBPs require a greater number of BPM for goal discharge-SBP<160 mm Hg, and investigated factors influencing this goal. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 288 patients who presented with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. Admission-SBP was obtained. Primary outcome was the number of BPM at discharge. Comparison was made between patients presenting with and without a history of hypertension, and patients discharged on <3 and ≥3 BPM. Results: Patients with hypertension history had a higher median admission-SBP compared with those without (180 vs. 157 mm Hg, P=0.0001). In total, 133 of 288 (46.2%) patients were discharged on <3 BPM; 155/288 (53.8%) were discharged on ≥3 BPM. Hypertension history (P<0.0001) and admission-SBP (P<0.0001) predicted the number of BPM at discharge. In patients without hypertension history, every 10 mm Hg increase in SBP resulted in an absolute increase of 0.5 BPM at discharge (P=0.0011), whereas in those with hypertension, the absolute increase was 1.3 BPM (P=0.0012). In comparison with patients discharged on <3 BPM, patients discharged on ≥3 BPM were more likely to have a higher median admission-SBP, be younger in age, belong to the African-American race, have a history of diabetes, have higher median admission–National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and modified Rankin Scale of 4 to 5 at discharge. Conclusions: An understanding of the factors influencing BPM at discharge may help clinicians better optimize blood pressure control both before and after discharge.