Abstract
Introduction: In Japan, there are more board‐certified neurosurgeons than board‐certified neurologists, and a significant part of stroke practice is provided by neurosurgeons. In neuroendovascular therapy practice, the trend of neurosurgeons to be in majority is more pronounced. The most of neuroendovascular therapy specialists (n = 1,586) certified by the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy (JSNET) consists of neurosurgeons, and the proportion of neurologists/internists is only 8% (n = 128) as of April 2021. The aim of this study is to investigate the current status and roles of interventional neurologists, the minority providing neuroendovascular therapy, in Japanese clinical setting. Methods: Between 16th and 28th February 2021, the Japan Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (JSVIN) conducted a survey for society‐member neurologists and internists using questionnaires on Google Forms. The questionnaires consisted of 11 items regarding years after graduation, facility location, department, work style (full‐time or concurrent interventionalist), diseases for which respondents were engaged, disease/procedure preferences which respondents would treat by themselves, respondents’ roles in their own neuroendovascular therapy team, and others. Results: Replies were obtained from 112 (67.1%) out of all JSVIN‐member neurologists and internists (n = 167). The respondents included 71 JSNET‐certified specialists and they consisted of 56.3% of all the JSNET‐certified neurologists/internists. The departments to where the respondents belonged were Neurology in 66%, Cerebrovascular medicine in 25%, Neuroendovascular therapy in 4%, and Neurosurgery in 3%. The median years after graduation was 15 years (interquartile range, 10 – 21 years) and the proportion of respondents who have graduated 10 years or less was 30%. Respondents’ facilities were distributed around 27 prefectures of all 47 Japanese prefectures and a significant proportion of those was located in urban area; 20% in Osaka and 13% in Tokyo. The number of full‐time interventionalist was only 1. Sixty‐three (56%) were concurrently engaged in general neurology practice, and 33 (30%) in stroke neurology practice. The proportions of diseases for which the respondents were engaged were ischemic cerebrovascular diseases (acute large vessel occlusion strokes, carotid stenoses, and others) in 100%, hemorrhagic cerebrovascular diseases (cerebral aneurysms, arteriovenous shunts, and others) in 44%, and other diseases (tumors, spinal vascular disorders, and others) in 28%. The proportions of disease/procedure preferences which respondents would treat by themselves were acute stroke thrombectomy in 90%, carotid/intracranial stenoses in 87%, ruptured cerebral aneurysms in 38%, unruptured cerebral aneurysms in 31%, cerebral arteriovenous shunts in 33%, brain tumors in 29%, spinal vascular disorders in 13%, and pediatric diseases in 3%. Respondents’ roles in their own neuroendovascular therapy team were diagnostic performances based on neurologist’s skills in 89%, comorbidity assessment and management based on internist’s skills in 88%, precise neurological evaluation in 77%, neurosonological evaluation in 75%, and establishments of in‐hospital workflow/multi‐disciplinary collaboration in 71%. Conclusions: Most of interventional neurologists in Japan were engaged in neuroendovascular therapy mainly for ischemic cerebrovascular diseases in parallel with general neurology and/or stroke neurology practices. Interventional neurologists’ skill set developed in neurology/internist trainings and practices might contribute to the quality improvement of neuroendovascular therapy in Japan.