Compensated and non-compensated patient injury claims in internal carotid artery interventions in Finland, 2004-2017

OBJECTIVES

Analysis of patient injuries offers possibilities for improving quality in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify errors and adverse events leading to patient injuries in the treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on data from Finnish patient injury claims and patient insurance center decisions in the treatment of ICAS, 2004-2017. Contributing factors to injury were identified and evaluated.

RESULTS

During the 14-year study period, 42 patient injury claims involving ICAS treatment were closed in Finland. One claim involved carotid artery stenting, and the other operations were carotid artery endarterectomies. Nine of the claims were compensated (seven for operations and two for evaluations). Fully trained vascular surgeons had carried out all the operations and evaluations. Stroke was the most common complaint in the claims (n = 12). Six of the compensated patients were symptomatic prior to the interventions. Injuries were related to errors in decision-making and patient selection in two cases. Four patients received compensation for nerve injury and three for stroke. No deaths were compensated as patient injuries. Most negative claim decisions were related to the injury having been unavoidable.

CONCLUSION

Compensated patient injuries involving the treatment of ICAS are rare but often serious and mostly involve open surgery. Patient injury claims provide a valuable source of information for recognizing errors in care and offer possibilities to improve patient safety.

Systematic Review of Malpractice Litigation in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Stroke

Background and Purpose—

The emergency management of stroke is complex and highly time-sensitive. Recent landmark trials demonstrating the strong benefit of thrombectomy have led to rapid change in stroke management. This article reviews a large number of medical malpractice lawsuits related to the emergency management of stroke to characterize factors involved in these lawsuits.

Methods—

Three large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to the acute care of stroke patients in the United States. Search terms included “stroke” and “medical malpractice.” Cases were screened to include only cases in which the allegation involved negligence in the acute care of a patient suffering a stroke.

Results—

We found 246 medical malpractice cases related to the acute management of ischemic stroke and 26 related to intracranial hemorrhage. Seventy-one cases specifically alleged a failure to treat with tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) and 7 cases alleged a failure to treat, or to timely treat, with thrombectomy. Overall there were 151 cases (56%) which ended with no payout, 74 cases (27%) were settled out of court, and 47 cases (17%) went to court and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The average payout in settlements was $1 802 693, and the average payout in plaintiff verdicts was $9 705 099.

Conclusions—

Malpractice litigation is a risk in acute stroke care and can lead to significant financial consequences. The majority of malpractice lawsuits related to the emergency management of stroke allege a failure to diagnose and failure to treat. Allegations of a failure to treat acute ischemic stroke with tPA were frequently found and are common in lawsuits. Allegations of a failure to treat a large vessel occlusion with thrombectomy were less frequently found. Given recent changes in practice guidelines and the demonstrated strong treatment effect of thrombectomy, it is likely that such litigation will increase in the coming years.

An analysis of malpractice litigation in the surgical management of carotid artery disease

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery disease is a common illness that can pose a significant risk if left untreated. Treatment via carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) can also lead to complications. Given the risk of adverse events related to treating, or failing to treat, carotid artery disease, this is a possible area for litigation. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the medicolegal factors involved in treating patients suffering carotid artery disease and to compare litigation related to CEA and CAS.

METHODS

Three large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to untreated carotid artery disease, CEA, and CAS. Search terms included "endarterectomy," "medical malpractice," "carotid," "stenosis," "stenting," "stent," and combinations of those words. Three types of cases were considered relevant: 1) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CEA or perioperative care (CEA-related cases); 2) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CAS or perioperative care (CAS-related cases); and 3) cases in which the plaintiff alleged that a CEA or CAS should have been performed (failure-to-treat [FTT] cases).

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four CEA-related cases, 3 CAS-related cases, and 67 FTT cases were identified. Cases resulted in 133 verdicts for the defense (59%), 64 settlements (29%), and 27 plaintiff verdicts (12%). The average payout in cases that were settled outside of court was $1,097,430 and the average payout in cases that went to trial and resulted in a plaintiff verdict was $2,438,253. Common allegations included a failure to diagnose and treat carotid artery disease in a timely manner, treating with inappropriate indications, procedural error, negligent postprocedural management, and lack of informed consent. Allegations of a failure to timely treat known carotid artery disease were likely to lead to a payout (60% of cases involved a payout). Allegations of procedural error, specifically where the resultant injury was nerve injury, were relatively less likely to lead to a payout (28% of cases involved a payout).

CONCLUSIONS

Both diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease has serious medicolegal implications and risks. In cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict, the payouts were significantly higher than cases resolved outside the courtroom. Knowledge of common allegations in diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease as well as performing CEA and CAS may benefit neurosurgeons. The lack of CAS-related litigation suggests these procedures may entail a lower risk of litigation compared to CEA, even accounting for the difference in the frequency of both procedures.

A prospective, single-blind, randomized, phase III study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Fibrin Sealant Grifols as an adjunct to hemostasis compared with manual compression in vascular surgery

OBJECTIVE

New formulations and applications of hemostatic adjuncts such as fibrin sealant (FS) to support local hemostasis and sutures continue to be developed. In a pivotal, confirmatory, controlled, prospective, single-blinded, randomized, multicenter phase III clinical trial, the efficacy and safety of FS Grifols during vascular surgeries were evaluated.

METHODS

Patients undergoing a nonemergency, open, peripheral vascular surgical procedure with moderate arterial bleeding were recruited. In an initial preliminary part of the study, all patients were treated with FS Grifols. In a subsequent primary part, patients were randomized (2:1) to FS Grifols or manual compression (MC). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of the primary part patients achieving hemostasis by 4 minutes after the start of treatment. Cumulative proportion and time to hemostasis were secondary efficacy end points. Safety end points (in pooled preliminary and primary parts) included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical assessments, clinical laboratory tests, viral markers, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy end point was met by 76.1% of patients (83/109) for the FS Grifols group versus 22.8% of patients (13/57) for the MC group (P < .001). The cumulative proportion of patients at 5, 7, and 10 minutes was 80.7%, 84.4%, and 88.1%, respectively, in the FS Grifols treatment group, and 28.1%, 35.1%, and 45.6% in the MC treatment group (P < .001). The median time to hemostasis was shorter in the FS Grifols group (4 minutes vs ≥10 minutes in the MC group; P < .001). The nature of AEs reported were those expected in the study patient profile. The percentage of patients experiencing treatment-emergent AEs were similar in both the FS Grifols (pooled n = 59 + 109) and MC groups (81.0% and 77.2%, respectively), most recurrent being procedural pain (34.5% and 36.8%, respectively) and pyrexia (11.3% and 10.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FS Grifols was superior in efficacy and similar in safety to MC as an adjunct local hemostatic agent in patients undergoing open vascular surgeries.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of a Ready-to-Use Fibrin Sealant as an Adjunct to Hemostasis during Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic or "stitch hole" bleeding is common during vascular surgery with synthetic material such as Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene. Hemostatic adjuncts such as fibrin sealant (FS) may reduce blood loss and operating time in such circumstances. We evaluated the safety and the hemostatic effectiveness of a ready-to-use human plasma-derived FS in vascular surgery.

METHODS

Patients with mild/moderate suture line bleeding during elective, open, vascular surgery using synthetic grafts or patches were studied. In an initial Exploratory Study, all patients were treated with FS Grifols, and in a subsequent Primary Study were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to FS Grifols or manual compression (MC). The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis (TTH), assessed at defined intervals from the start of treatment application, during a 10-min observational period. Safety end points (in Exploratory + Primary Studies) included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical assessments, common clinical laboratory tests (coagulation, complete blood count, serum clinical chemistry parameters, microscopic urinalysis), viral markers, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

In the Primary Study, the proportion of patients who achieved hemostasis at the 3-min time point was higher in the FS Grifols group (46.4%, n = 51/110) than in the MC group (26.3%, n = 15/57) (P < 0.05). The benefit was maintained at successive time intervals: 69 FS Grifols patients (62.7%) and 18 MC patients (31.6%) at 4 min; 82 FS Grifols patients (74.5%) and 28 MC patients (49.1%) at 5 min. The differences between the groups persisted for TTH ≤ 7 min and TTH ≤ 10 min. Treatment failure was reported for 13 FS Grifols patients (11.8%) and 16 MC patients (28.1%). TTH was shorter after FS Grifols application than after MC application. Differences were statistically significant in favor of FS Grifols for each TTH category and for the overall comparison (P < 0.001) as well as for each TTH category (cumulative) and for treatment failure (P = 0.016). Overall, AE experience and types of AEs reported were those expected in this patient population and were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs were procedural pain (59.9% and 69.2% of patients in the FS Grifols [n = 72 + 111] and MC [n = 57] groups, respectively) and nausea (23.5% and 19.2% of patients, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FS Grifols was efficacious and safe as an adjunct to anastomotic hemostasis in patients undergoing arterial surgery using prosthetic material with mild to moderate bleeding.

Medical Malpractice in Bariatric Surgery: a Review of 140 Medicolegal Claims

OBJECTIVE

Given the current rate of obesity in the USA, it has been estimated that close to half of the US adult population could be obese by 2030, resulting in greater demand for bariatric procedures. Our objective was to analyze malpractice litigation related to bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of Westlaw (Thompson Reuters) of all bariatric operations that resulted in the filing of a malpractice claim. Each case was reviewed for pertinent medicolegal information related to the procedure, claim, and trial.

RESULTS

The search criteria yielded 298 case briefs, of which 140 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-two percent (n = 49) of cases involved male plaintiffs (patients). Mean patient age with standard deviation (SD) was 43 (10) years. The most common procedure litigated was the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (76 %, n = 107). Overall, the most common alleged reason for a malpractice claim was delay in diagnosis or management of a complication in the postoperative period (n = 66, 47 %), the most common of which was an anastomotic leak (45 %, n = 34). Death was reported in 74 (52 %) cases. Fifty-seven cases (47 %) were decided in favor of the plaintiff (patient), with a median award payout of $1,090,000 (interquartile range [IQR] $412,500 to $2,550,000).

CONCLUSION

Delay in diagnosing or managing complications in the postoperative setting, most commonly an anastomotic leak, accounted for the majority of malpractice claims. Measures taken to identify and address anastomotic leaks and other complications early in the postoperative period could potentially reduce the amount of filed malpractice claims related to bariatric surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.