Back to 2026 Abstracts
Comprehensive National Institutes of Health Funding Analysis of Academic Vascular Surgeons
Adishesh Narahari, Paranjay Patel, Emily Fronk, Anirudha Chandrabhatla, Ann Mathew, Patrick McCarthy, A. Chase Phillips, Behzad Farivar, W. Darrin Clouse, Margaret C Tracci
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
BACKGROUND: Funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides critical resources for investigators but obtaining it has become increasingly challenging. In this study, we evaluated NIH funding to current academic vascular surgeons, hypothesizing that the combination of increased competition, increased clinical/administrative duties, and insufficient protected research time have led to a decline in funding levels.
METHODS: Institutional webpages from 169 academic surgery programs were examined for practicing vascular surgeons. Leadership, academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship training details were collected from faculty pages. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER) was queried using a Python script and the following grant details were collected: type, title, principal investigator (PI), project start/end dates, total funding amount, and the PubMed identifier for each publication resulting from the grant. The number of citations received by each publication was determined using the iCite NIH database and a validated grant impact metric was calculated. Only grants with practicing vascular surgeons listed as the PI were considered. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables.
RESULTS: A total of 1,112 practicing vascular surgeons from 166 academic institutions were identified (Figure 1). Of this cohort, 107 (9.6%) surgeons received NIH funding. In total, 249 grants were identified from 1974-2021. The $79 million contributed to 3,636 publications, which resulted in 124,874 citations. Investigators with a Ph.D, full professorship, endowed position, and leadership (Chair, Vice Chair, Chief) were more likely to be funded (P < 0.05, for all). Institutes with an overall higher NIH funding rank had a greater number of total and funded vascular surgeons, grants, and funding amount (P < 0.0001, for all). Notably, 41.3% of all funded vascular surgeons practice at institutions in the top quartile (34 out of 137) of NIH funding (Figure 2). The most prevalent grant awarded was the R01 (n = 88; $37.2 million), however R01 competitive renewal was found to be only 23.9%. Longitudinally, the total number of active grants held by, and new grants awarded to vascular surgeons have increased (P < 0.0001, for both). Vascular surgeons also achieved a high 10-year K-award (mentored developmental awards) to R01 conversion rate of 50% (16 out of 32).
CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, academic vascular surgeons have continued to obtain more NIH funding in an increasingly challenging environment. Furthermore, vascular surgeons have also demonstrated success in transitioning from mentored awards to independent funding. Investigators awarded R01 grants should consider pursuing competitive renewal and aspiring surgeon-scientists may be more successful in obtaining funding at top quartile institutions.
Back to 2026 Abstracts
