Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

BACKGROUND: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is a key driver of orthopaedic research, but it has become increasingly difficult to obtain in recent years. An understanding of the types of grants that are commonly funded, how productive they are, and the factors associated with obtaining funding may help orthopaedic surgeons better understand how to earn grants. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought to determine (1) the proportion of current academic orthopaedic surgeons who have obtained NIH grant funding, (2) the productivity of these grants by calculating grant productivity metrics, and (3) the factors (such as gender, subspecialty, and additional degrees) that are associated with obtaining grant funding. METHODS: Current academic orthopaedic surgeons at the top 140 NIH-funded institutions were identified via faculty webpages; 3829 surgeons were identified. Demographic information including gender (men constituted 88% of the group [3364 of 3829]), academic rank (full professors constituted 22% [856 of 3829]), additional degrees (those with MD-PhD degrees constituted 3% [121 of 3829]), leadership positions, and orthopaedic subspecialty was collected. Funding histories from 1985 through 2021 were collected using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Grant type, funding, publications, and citations of each article were collected. A previously used grant impact metric (total citations per USD 0.1 million) was calculated to assess grant productivity. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with obtaining funding. RESULTS: Four percent (150 of 3829) of academic orthopaedic surgeons obtained USD 338.3 million in funding across 301 grants, resulting in 2887 publications over the entire study period. The R01 was the most commonly awarded grant in terms of the total number awarded, at 36% (108 of 301), as well as by funding, publications, and citations, although other grant types including T32, F32, R03, R13, and R21 had higher mean grant impact metrics. There was no difference between men and women in the by-gender percentage of academic orthopaedic surgeons who obtained funding (4% [135 of 3229] versus 3% [15 of 450]; odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7]; p = 0.80). A department having a single funded PhD researcher may be associated with surgeon-scientists obtaining grant funding, but with the numbers available, we could not demonstrate this was the case (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.2]; p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Fewer than one in 20 academic orthopaedic surgeons have received NIH funding. R01s are the most commonly awarded grant, although others demonstrate increased productivity metrics. Future studies should investigate the role of co-principal investigators on productivity and the role of different funding sources. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Individuals should pursue both R01 and non-R01 grants, and departments should consider cultivating relationships with funded PhDs. The specific research infrastructure and departmental policies of the most productive institutions and grants should be surveyed and emulated.

The impact of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery on National Institutes of Health grant funding for cardiothoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, through its annual meeting, pilot grant funding, Scientific Affairs and Government Relations Committee activity, and academic development programs (Grant Writing Workshop, Clinical Trials Course, Innovation Summit), has aimed to develop the research careers of cardiothoracic surgeons. We hypothesized that American Association for Thoracic Surgery activities have helped increase National Institutes of Health grants awarded to cardiothoracic surgeons. METHODS: A database of 1869 academic cardiothoracic surgeons in the United States was created in December 2020. National Institutes of Health grant records from 1985 to 2020 were obtained for each surgeon using National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Analyses were normalized to the number of active surgeons per year, based on the year of each surgeon's earliest research publication on Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 346 cardiothoracic surgeons have received 696 National Institutes of Health grants totaling more than $1.5 billion in funding, with 48 surgeons actively serving as principal investigator of 66 R01 grants in 2020. The prevalence of research grants (7.4 vs 5.6 grants per 100 active surgeons, P < .0001), percentage of surgeons with a research grant (5.3% vs 4.7%, P = .0342), and number of research grants per funded surgeon (1.4 vs 1.2 grants, P < .0001) were significantly greater during the Scientific Affairs and Government Relations era (2003-2020) than the pre-Scientific Affairs and Government Relations era (1985-2002). The incidence of new research grants after surgeon participation in an American Association for Thoracic Surgery academic development program was significantly greater than that in the absence of participation (3.5 vs 1.1 new grants per 100 surgeons per year, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Through dedicated efforts and programs, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery has provided effective support to help increase National Institutes of Health grant funding awarded to cardiothoracic surgeons.

Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate. METHODS: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity. RESULTS: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

A 30-year analysis of National Institutes of Health-funded cardiac transplantation research: Surgeons lead the way.

OBJECTIVES: Obtaining National Institutes of Health funding for heart transplant research is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for surgeons. We sought to determine the impact of National Institutes of Health-funded cardiac transplantation research over the past 30 years. METHODS: National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results was queried for R01s using 10 heart transplant-related terms. Principal Investigator, total grant funding amount, number of publications, and citations of manuscripts were collected. A citation-based Grant Impact Metric was assigned to each grant: sum of citations for each manuscript normalized by the funding of the respective grant (per $100K). The department and background degree(s) (MD, PhD, MD/PhD) for each funded Principal Investigator were identified from institutional faculty profiles. RESULTS: A total of 321 cardiac transplantation R01s totaling $723 million and resulting in 6513 publications were analyzed. Surgery departments received more grants and more funding dollars to study cardiac transplantation than any other department (n = 115, $249 million; Medicine: n = 93, $208 million; Pathology: 26, $55 million). Surgeons performed equally well compared with all other Principal Investigators with respect to Grant Impact Metric (15.1 vs 20.6; P = .19) and publications per $1 million (7.5 vs 6.8; P = .75). Finally, all physician-scientists (MDs) have a significantly higher Grant Impact Metric compared with nonclinician researchers (non-MDs) (22.3 vs 16.3; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon-scientists are equally productive and impactful compared with nonsurgeons despite decreasing funding rates at the National Institutes of Health and greater pressure from administrators to increase clinical productivity.

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n = 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p = 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p = 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p = 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p = 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

Comprehensive National Institutes of Health funding analysis of academic cardiac surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands. METHODS: Cardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric. RESULTS: A total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants. CONCLUSIONS: NIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeons Achieve High Rates of K Award Conversion Into R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 funding remains extremely difficult. The utility of career development grants (K awards) for achieving the goal of R01 funding remains debated, particularly for surgeon-scientists. We examined the success rate for cardiothoracic and vascular (CTV) surgeons compared with other specialties in converting K-level grants into R01 equivalents. METHODS: All K (K08 and K23) grants awarded to surgeons by the NIH between 1992 and 2017 were identified through NIH Research Portfolio Online Report Tools (RePORTER), an online database combining funding, publications, and patents. Only grants awarded to CTV surgeons were included. Grants active within the past year were excluded. Mann-Whitney U tests and χ2 tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: During this period, 62 K grants were awarded to CTV surgeons. The analysis excluded 16 grants that were still active within the last year. Twenty-two (48%) of the remaining K awardees successfully transitioned to an R01 or equivalent grant. Awardees with successful conversion published nine publications per K grant compared with four publications for those who did not convert successfully (p = 0.01). The median time for successful conversion to an R grant was 5.0 years after the K award start date. Importantly, the 10-year conversion rate to R01 was equal for CTV surgeons compared with other clinician-investigators (52.6% vs 42.5%). CONCLUSIONS: CTV surgeons have an equal 10-year conversion rate to the first R01 award compared with other clinicians. These data suggest that NIH achieves a good return on investment when funding CTV surgeon-scientists with K-level funding.

Surgeon Scientists Are Disproportionately Affected by Declining NIH Funding Rates.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding over the last 10 years has become increasingly difficult due to a decrease in the number of research grants funded and an increase in the number of NIH applications. STUDY DESIGN: National Institutes of Health funding amounts and success rates were compared for all disciplines using data from NIH, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Next, all NIH grants (2006 to 2016) with surgeons as principal investigators were identified using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER), and a grant impact score was calculated for each grant based on the publication's impact factor per funding amount. Linear regression and one-way ANOVA were used for analysis. RESULTS: The number of NIH grant applications has increased by 18.7% (p = 0.0009), while the numbers of funded grants (p < 0.0001) and R01s (p < 0.0001) across the NIH have decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. The mean success rate of funded grants with surgeons as principal investigators (16.4%) has been significantly lower than the mean NIH funding rate (19.2%) (p = 0.011). Despite receiving only 831 R01s during this time period, surgeon scientists were highly productive, with an average grant impact score of 4.9 per $100,000, which increased over the last 10 years (0.15 ± 0.05/year, p = 0.02). Additionally, the rate of conversion of surgeon scientist-mentored K awards to R01s from 2007 to 2012 was 46%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite declining funding over the last 10 years, surgeon scientists have demonstrated increasing productivity as measured by impactful publications and higher success rates in converting early investigator awards to R01s.

Cardiothoracic surgery training grants provide protected research time vital to the development of academic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32) provides institutions with financial support to prepare trainees for careers in academic medicine. In 1990, the Cardiac Surgery Branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was replaced by T32 training grants, which became crucial sources of funding for cardiothoracic (CT) surgical research. We hypothesized that T32 grants would be valuable for CT surgery training and yield significant publications and subsequent funding. METHODS: Data on all trainees (past and present) supported by CT T32 grants at two institutions were obtained (T32), along with information on trainees from two similarly sized programs without CT T32 funding (Non-T32). Data collected were publicly available and included publications, funding, degrees, fellowships, and academic rank. Non-surgery residents and residents who did not pursue CT surgery were excluded. RESULTS: Out of 76 T32 trainees and 294 Non-T32 trainees, data on 62 current trainees or current CT surgeons (T32: 42 vs Control: 20) were included. Trainees who were supported by a CT T32 grant were more likely to pursue CT surgery after residency (T32: 40% [30/76] vs Non-T32: 7% [20/294], P < .0001), publish manuscripts during residency years (P < .0001), obtain subsequent NIH funding (T32: 33% [7/21] vs Non-T32: 5% [1/20], P = .02), and pursue advanced fellowships (T32: 41% [9/22] vs Non-T32: 10% [2/20], P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: T32 training grants supporting CT surgery research are vital to develop academic surgeons. These results support continued funding by the NHLBI to effectively develop and train the next generation of academic CT surgeons.

Improved outcomes and value in staged hybrid extent II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Complex Crawford extent II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) can be treated in a hybrid manner with proximal thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, followed by staged distal open thoracoabdominal repair. This study evaluated the outcomes and health care-associated value of this new method compared with traditional open repair over 10 years. METHODS: A prospectively collected database was used to identify all patients with an extent II TAAA undergoing repair at a single institution between 2005 and 2015. Patient characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and incidence of major adverse events (MAEs; renal failure, spinal cord ischemia, death) were compared. After adjusting for time since surgery, value was analyzed looking at quality (1/MAE) divided by cost (total health system cost). This was multiplied by a constant to set the value of open TAAA repair to 100. RESULTS: A total of 113 consecutive patients underwent extent II TAAA repairs, of whom 25 (22.1%) had a staged hybrid approach with a median of 129 days between procedures. No baseline differences in demographic or comorbidity variables existed between groups (P > .05). The hybrid group had shorter operative time (255 vs 306 minutes; P = .01), shorter postoperative length of stay (10.1 vs 13.3 days; P = .02), and reduced blood loss (1300 vs 2600 mL; P = .01) at the time of open operation. Despite higher rates of acute kidney injury in the hybrid group (76.0% vs 51.1%; P = .03), there was no difference in renal failure (8.0% vs 4.5%; P = .84). The incidence of MAEs was lower in the staged hybrid group (20.0% vs 48.9%; P = .01), without a difference in hospital mortality (4.0% vs 3.4%; P = .89). Median total cost was higher in the hybrid group ($112,920 vs $72,037; P = .003). Value was improved in the hybrid group by 56% using mean cost and 178% by median cost. CONCLUSIONS: The 20% MAE rate associated with staged hybrid repair of extent II TAAA was significantly decreased compared with open repair, with a relative reduction of >50%. Despite higher total hospital costs, staged hybrid repair had 56% to 178% higher health care-related value compared with standard open repair. In an era of increasing focus on costs and quality, staged hybrid repair of extensive TAAAs is associated with fewer complications than open TAAA repair, resulting in a good value investment from a resource utilization perspective.