Medical malpractice in aortic valve and mitral valve replacement surgery in North America.

BACKGROUND: Aortic and mitral valve replacement are commonly performed by cardiovascular surgeons, but little data quantitatively analyzes the etiology and prevalence of medical malpractice litigations involving these operations. This study aims to analyze incidence, cause, and resolution of medical malpractice lawsuits involving aortic and mitral valve replacements, alone and in combination with coronary artery bypass and/or aortic procedures. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was utilized to compile relevant litigations across the United States from 1994-2019. Clinical data, verdict data, demographic data, and litigation attributes were compiled. Fisher's Exact Tests and Mann-Whitney tests were performed for statistical analyses. One hundred four malpractice litigations involving aortic valve replacement and 55 litigations involving mitral valve replacement were included in this analysis. The mean age of patients was 55.2 years and proportion of female patients was 32.7% in aortic valve replacements litigations, compared to a mean age of 54.1 years and female patients in 61.8% of mitral valve replacements litigations. RESULTS: Significant relationships exist between an alleged failure to monitor the patient and defendant verdicts (P=0.01), delayed treatment and defendant verdicts (P=0.04), and incidence of infective endocarditis and plaintiff verdicts (P=0.04) in aortic valve replacement litigations. Similarly, significant relationships exist between an alleged failure to diagnose and settlement verdicts (P=0.047), and stroke incidence and defendant verdicts (P=0.03) in mitral valve replacement litigations. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to excellent surgeon patient/family communication, administering surgical treatment in a timely manner, diagnosing acting on concomitant medical conditions, and close patient monitoring may diminish medical malpractice litigation involving aortic and mitral valve replacement operations.

The process of litigation for medical errors in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom.

Efficient process of litigation of medical errors is a key to ensure fair, speedy, and accessible justice system. The conditions of establishing medical negligence are similar in both legal systems. These conditions include the duty of care, breach of that duty of care, the damages, and establishing causation. A culture of litigation and compensation is growing in the United Kingdom and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; however the cost of medical claims and awarded compensations are much more in the United Kingdom compared to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is a need for more transparency in the documentation and publication of litigated medical errors. In addition, there is a need to introduce interventions to shorten the duration of litigation in both legal systems. Financial caps on awarded compensation and caps on expert and legal fees are potential strategies to control the cost of medical errors which seems to work well in the Saudi model.