About

Mark D. Neuman, MD, MSc, is the Horatio C. Wood Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. He serves as an Attending Anesthesiologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center. Dr. Neuman is a senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and holds multiple roles including Director of the Penn Center for Perioperative Outcomes Research and Transformation (CPORT), Investigator at the Penn Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Affiliate Faculty at the Penn Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center (PAIR), Research Associate at the Penn Population Aging Research Center (PARC), and Associate Scholar at the Penn Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. He is also the Vice Chair for Clinical and Translational Research in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care. His educational background includes a BA in English Language and Literature from Yale University (1999), an MD from the University of California, San Francisco (2004), and an MSc in Health Policy Research from the University of Pennsylvania (2010). Dr. Neuman's clinical expertise involves providing operative anesthesia care for various surgeries, with a focus on clinical decision-making and the use of statistical methods to predict health outcomes. His research primarily investigates health-system level determinants of long-term outcomes of surgery and acute care among older adults in the U.S., emphasizing how variations in care across different settings influence patient outcomes. His work includes studying patterns of care and outcomes for older adults with hip fractures, employing diverse methodologies such as observational studies, meta-analyses, surveys, and qualitative research to understand social and cultural influences on healthcare utilization and performance.

Research topics

• Surgery
• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Intensive care medicine
• Cardiology
• Anesthesia
• Emergency medicine

Selected publications

• Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial

  Anesthesiology · 2026-04-08

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: The Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) Trial is a multicenter prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial examining patients' experiences and outcomes after receiving either total intravenous anesthesia with propofol or inhaled volatile anesthesia for general anesthesia (NCT05991453). Prior to the 13,000-patient trial, a pilot trial (NCT05346588) was performed to establish feasibility and determine percent success of: 1) patient enrollment, 2) intervention adherence, and 3) data completion. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility trial including adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anesthesia across two academic institutions in the United States. Patients were randomized to receive general anesthesia with total intravenous or inhalational anesthesia. Patients completed surveys on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, 7, 30, and 90. Percentages of consent, intervention adherence, and data completion were compared with pre-defined thresholds (10%, 80%, and 90%, respectively). RESULTS: 300 patients were enrolled across two sites, Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Michigan, from September, 2022 through March, 2023. The percentages achieved significantly exceeded pre-defined thresholds: 351 of 663 (53%, 95% CI, 49% to 57%) patients approached were successfully consented, adherence to the randomized intervention occurred in 142 of 149 (95%, 95% CI, 92% to 99%) total intravenous anesthesia cases and 150 of 151 (99%, 95% CI, 98% to 100%) inhaled cases, and complete data collection occurred for the Quality of Recovery-15 in 279 of 299 (93%, 95% CI, 91% to 96%) patients and 299 of 299 (100% complete 95% CI, 100% to 100%) patients for the modified Brice, the intraoperative awareness screening questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to enroll sufficient patients, adhere strongly to the randomized treatment allocation, and obtain adequate outcomes data at these two pilot sites for the THRIVE trial.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Cesarean Anesthesia Type and Neonatal Outcomes: Reply

  Anesthesiology · 2026-03-16

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Anesthesia clinicians’ perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures in older adults

  BMC Anesthesiology · 2026-02-18

  articleOpen access

  Peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) have emerged as a promising pain management strategy for older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. This study aimed to identify factors influencing PNB use and assess opinions on their effectiveness and implementation among physician anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and certified anesthesiologist assistants (CAAs). A cross-sectional study surveyed physician anesthesiologists, CRNAs, and CAAs caring for adults aged 50 years and older with hip fractures from May 2024 to July 2024. The 22-item questionnaire explored demographics, PNB practices, perceived advantages, disadvantages, barriers to use, and interest in future research. A total of 185 surveys were returned: 94.5% from physician anesthesiologists, 4.9% from CRNAs, and 0.5% from a CAA. While 86% of respondents perceived PNBs as beneficial, 14% reported they were unsure or opposed the use of PNB for older adults undergoing surgical fixation of hip fractures. The reported primary perceived advantages of using PNB in older adults with hip fractures included reduced pain and decreased opioid use within 72 h postoperatively. The reported primary difficulties in using PNB included surgical delays and institutional culture against PNB use. Most respondents (86%) supported further research on PNB outcomes to assess if benefits beyond acute pain exist. The majority of anesthesia clinicians surveyed perceived PNBs as potentially beneficial for pain management in hip fracture patients. However, numerous reported barriers to PNB use were identified. Given the convenience sampling approach, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and further research on PNB's association with patient-centered outcomes and implementation strategies may help address these obstacles.

  PublisherDOI

• Shared decision-making for older adults in the peri-operative setting

  European Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2025-06-23 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access

  Older adults undergoing surgery often face numerous challenges to healthcare decisions due to frailty, comorbidities and varying personal priorities. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a patient-centred approach that enhances peri-operative care by aligning medical decisions with individual values and preferences. When considering surgery for an older adult, SDM can ensure that the surgical treatment plan focuses on what older adults find important, such as quality of life (QOL), functional independence, long-term well being and survival. This narrative review explores the role of SDM in peri-operative care of older adults and strategies for increasing SDM in this context. SDM fosters collaboration between patients, families and healthcare teams; as a result, it can lead to improved patient satisfaction, reduced decisional conflict and greater trust between patients and their medical teams. However, integrating SDM into routine practice remains complex due to cognitive impairment, communication barriers, time constraints and gaps in evidence. Effective SDM strategies include enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration, improving clinician and staff training, developing decision aids tailored to older adults considering surgery and leveraging technology to support patient engagement. Future efforts should focus on expanding SDM research, refining implementation frameworks and advocating for policy changes that facilitate patient-centred surgical decision-making in older adults. As the global population ages, prioritising SDM in peri-operative care will be critical to optimising patient outcomes, ensuring ethical, informed decision-making and aligning care plans with the patient's goals and values.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Outcomes of Venopulmonary Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Conversion in Patients With Severe Respiratory Failure on Venovenous Support

  ASAIO Journal · 2025-12-25

  articleCorresponding

  Severe respiratory failure is frequently complicated by right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), which occurs in 20-50% of cases. In patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) with refractory RVD, conversion to venopulmonary (VP) ECMO can provide additional mechanical support. This study evaluates the impact of VV to VP ECMO conversion on mortality and end-organ dysfunction in severe respiratory failure. A retrospective cohort study of 19 adult patients on VV ECMO who were converted to VP ECMO was performed. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, resolution of acute kidney injury (AKI), pressor requirements, ventilator and ECMO parameters, and ECMO support duration. Venopulmonary ECMO conversion facilitated AKI resolution in 62.5% of patients with pre-conversion AKI (5/8) and was associated with liberation from continuous renal replacement therapy in 40% of patients (2/5). Conversion resulted in reduced pressor requirements (7/9, 78%), ECMO flows (15/19, 79%), sweep gas flow (12/19, 63%), ECMO fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2; 5/19, 26%), and ventilator FiO2 (3/19, 16%). Venopulmonary ECMO conversion facilitated sedation weaning in 10 patients (53%) which was previously not tolerated due to desaturation events on VV ECMO. Overall, VP ECMO conversion was associated with improved oxygenation, hemodynamic stability, and end-organ function in the majority of patients.

  PublisherDOI

• Variability in Use of Intravenous Adjuncts for Cesarean Delivery under Neuraxial Anesthesia

  Anesthesiology · 2025-11-07 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Correction: Adherence to recommended practices for perioperative anesthesia care for older adults among US anesthesiologists: results from the ASA Committee on Geriatric Anesthesia-Perioperative Brain Health Initiative ASA member survey

  Perioperative Medicine · 2025-12-03

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Shared decision making in intensive care and anaesthetics

  2025-08-01

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Anaesthesia and intensive care are complex, specialized medical domains that have wide impacts on health and patient experiences across the globe. Anaesthesia and intensive care represent high-risk decision making environments; in this context, important questions exist about which decisions are most amenable to shared decision making (SDM) and how best to support such decisions. This chapter addresses four key questions: first, what types of decisions are encountered in anaesthesia and intensive care, and which are most likely to be appropriate for SDM? Second, what is the current extent of SDM around common choices in anaesthesia and intensive care? Third, what interventions have been shown to increase SDM in these contexts? Fourth, what opportunities exist for future research on SDM in anaesthesia and intensive care?

  PublisherDOI

• Why the National Halothane Study Still Matters

  Anesthesiology · 2025-10-14

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Neonatal Outcomes with Regional versus General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  Anesthesiology · 2025-10-06 · 8 citations

  articleSenior author

  BACKGROUND: Neonatal outcomes with regional anesthesia (spinal, epidural, or combined spinal-epidural) versus general anesthesia for cesarean delivery remain poorly characterized. The authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to compare neonatal outcomes associated with each technique. They hypothesized that regional anesthesia would be associated with higher Apgar scores and less need for respiratory support and neonatal intensive care after delivery. METHODS: The authors searched randomized controlled trials comparing regional versus general anesthesia for patients undergoing cesarean delivery between January 1994 and November 2023. They abstracted information on study characteristics, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min, need for respiratory support after delivery, and need for neonatal intensive care. They analyzed summary data using random effects models and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 scale. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies involving 3,456 neonates were included. Of the neonates, 42.7% (n = 1,476) were born to parturients who underwent general anesthesia, and 57.3% (n = 1,980) were born to parturients who underwent regional anesthesia. Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were slightly higher after regional versus general anesthesia (mean difference at 1 min, 0.58 points; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P < 0.001; mean difference at 5 min, 0.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13; P < 0.001). Respiratory support was less often required with regional anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = 0.03). Need for neonatal intensive care did not differ across techniques (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.21; P = 0.24). All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Regional anesthesia for cesarean delivery is associated with slightly higher Apgar scores and less frequent need for neonatal respiratory support than general anesthesia. Additional studies are required to determine associations of anesthesia technique with need for intensive care and longer-term outcomes.

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• Acute Pain Management and Long-term Opioid Use after Surgery

  NIH · $2.0M · 2017–2022

Frequent coauthors

• Lee A. Fleisher

  126 shared

• Duminda N. Wijeysundera

  92 shared

• Karen B. Domino

  83 shared

• Michelle T. Vaughn

  University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

  83 shared

• Roy G. Soto

  Oakland University

  82 shared

• Robert B. Schonberger

  82 shared

• Catherine Chen

  81 shared

• Shital Vachhani

  81 shared

Education

• Master of Science, Health Policy Research

  University of Pennsylvania

  2010

• Doctor of Medicine, Medicine

  University of California, San Francisco

  2004

• Bachelor of Arts, English

  Yale University

  1999

Awards & honors

• Horatio C. Wood Professor of Anesthesiology