Malpractice Litigation Related to Diagnosis and Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Approaches to management of intracranial aneurysms are inconsistent, in part due to apprehension relating to potential malpractice claims. The purpose of this article was to review the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to the diagnosis and management of intracranial aneurysms and to identify the factors associated and their outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We consulted 2 large legal databases in the United States to search for cases in which there were jury awards and settlements related to the diagnosis and management of patients with intracranial aneurysms in the United States. Files were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence in the diagnosis and management of a patient with an intracranial aneurysm.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2020, two hundred eighty-seven published case summaries were identified, of which 133 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Radiologists constituted 16% of 159 physicians sued in these lawsuits. Failure to diagnose was the most common medical malpractice claim referenced (100/133 cases), with the most common subgroups being "failure to include cerebral aneurysm as a differential and thus perform adequate work-up" (30 cases), and "failure to correctly interpret aneurysm evidence on CT or MR imaging" (16 cases). Only 6 of these 16 cases were adjudicated at trial, with 2 decided in favor of the plaintiff (awarded $4,000,000 and $43,000,000, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorrect interpretation of imaging is relatively infrequent as a cause of malpractice litigation compared with failure to diagnose aneurysms in the clinical setting by neurosurgeons, emergency physicians, and primary care providers.

Long-term pancreatic allograft survival after renal retransplantation in prior simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients

Over a 23-year period, our center performed 82 renal retransplants in prior simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients with functioning pancreatic allografts. All patients were insulin-independent at retransplantation. We aimed to quantify the risk of returning to insulin therapy and to identify factors that predispose patients to pancreatic allograft failure after renal retransplantation. Among these 82 patients, pancreatic allograft survival after renal retransplantation was 78%, 49% and 40% at 1, 5 and 10 years. When analyzing risk factors, we unexpectedly found no clear relationship between the cause of primary renal allograft failure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting C-peptide level at retransplant and subsequent pancreatic allograft failure. An elevated HbA1c in the month after renal retransplant correlated with subsequent pancreatic graft loss and patients experiencing pancreatic graft loss were more likely to subsequently lose their renal retransplant. Although it is difficult to prospectively identify those patients who will return to insulin therapy after repeat renal transplantation, the relatively high frequency of this event mandates that this risk be conveyed to patients. Nonetheless, the survival benefit associated with renal retransplantation justifies pursuing retransplantation in this population.