An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigations in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting from 1994-2019.

BACKGROUND: Cardiothoracic surgery is one of the more highly litigated medical specialties, and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) constitutes a substantial portion of cardiothoracic surgery cases. Therefore, understanding litigations relating to CABG would be of benefit to surgeons working to uphold the standards of care that their patients seek and minimize their own legal liability. This study analyzed CABG litigations to identify predictive factors of litigation and verdict type. METHODS: This study utilized the Westlaw legal database to compile litigations from 1994-2019 across the United States, and resulted in 307 total litigations. After individual screening, 211 litigations met the criteria for inclusion, and were analyzed for demographic, clinical, chronological, and verdict characteristics. RESULTS: Litigations were present in 33 US states, with California, New York, and Florida having the most litigations. Defendant verdicts were reached in 67.78% of litigations, followed by 20.38% of plaintiff verdicts, and 11.85% of settlements. Plaintiff verdicts were associated with the incidence of myocardial infarction during hospitalization. The winter season had the most litigations (42.18%), and the most defendant verdicts (37.76%). Patient mortality occurred in 47.39% of litigations. The most common alleged reason for litigation was a procedural error (55.45%). CONCLUSIONS: Defendant verdicts were significantly associated with an alleged reason of procedural errors, an alleged reason of a failure to monitor, and congestive heart failure present in patients. The common nature of defendant verdicts, and the significantly greater occurrence of defendant verdicts during the highly litigated winter season, suggest that surgeons frequently satisfy the legal standard of care.

Malpractice litigation in cardiac surgery: Alleged injury mechanisms and outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The feared prospect of involvement in malpractice litigation ultimately becomes a reality for many physicians in high-risk specialties such as cardiothoracic surgery. This study systematically analyzes malpractice claims by procedure type and alleged injury mechanism. METHODS: An extensive nation-wide database of medical malpractice claims was searched, and 140 involving cardiac procedures were identified. The primary reason for the lawsuit was classified as a periprocedural injury, postoperative mismanagement, failure to operate in a timely manner or at all, performing an unnecessary procedure, performing a procedure too soon, lack of informed consent, or patient abandonment. RESULTS: Cardiac surgeons were defendants in 47.8% of cases and cardiologists in 56.4%. Forty percent of cases involved coronary artery bypass grafting, valvular surgery, or both; 50% of these received defendant verdicts. The most common reason for the lawsuit was periprocedural injury, most frequently due to poor prosthetic valve fit/securement (23.1%) or surgical site infection (15.4%). For congenital cases, most lawsuits alleged periprocedural injury, with perfusion-related issues (cooling during circulatory arrest, failure to inform surgeon about poor oxygenation) cited in 37.5%. Cardiologists and cardiothoracic or vascular surgeons were codefendants in 14.3% of cases, most commonly coronary artery bypass grafting (40%) or cardiac catheterizations (25%). In all catheterization cases, the allegation against the surgeon was a failure to diagnose/treat the complication in a proper or timely manner. In postoperative mismanagement cases, bleeding/tamponade was the most common allegation category (31.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A careful review of cardiac surgical malpractice litigation can identify common contributory factors to adverse patient outcomes and catalyze practice improvement.

Medico-legal issues in cardiology.

The aim of this article is to educate physicians about the current litigation climate in cardiology and cardiac surgery, with a focus on the most frequently litigated areas of practice, including failure to diagnose and treat myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and the use of tissue plasminogen activator. Empirical research on cardiology malpractice is presented, along with a sampling of up-to-date cases designed to illustrate common issues and important themes. The principles for reducing legal liability are also discussed, including the informed consent process, spoliation of records, and the role of documentation. Finally, practical recommendations are provided for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons to limit their legal liability.

Should patients undergoing PCI still be consented for emergency bypass?

Informed consent for emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is routinely obtained from patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and diagnostic angiography. Given the recent technological and pharmacological advances as well as increasing operator experience, we sought to assess the contemporary incidence of emergency CABG following PCI in our centre. In a total of 7855 consecutive PCIs, the overall rate of emergency CABG was 0.11%, and the mortality risk was 0.67%. We believe that in the vast majority of patients undergoing PCI and diagnostic angiography, routine consent for emergency CABG is no longer appropriate.

[Surgical volume. An American perspective]. / Chirurgische Fallzahl. Die amerikanische Perspektive.

Due to an increasing interest in patient safety and quality health care, many studies attempt to show a relationship between procedural volume at the institutional and individual level and patient outcome. Despite the correlation between number of surgeons and institutional volume in major operative procedures such as coronary artery bypass graft, pancreatic resection, and esophagectomy, these parameters are likely to be proxy for individual factors such as experience and structural aspects. In general the relationship between case numbers and results is more convincing in cancer surgery than for cardiovascular procedures, and risk adjustment may play an important role for interpreting results of the various studies. Exact thresholds cannot be determined and thus remain speculative. It appears difficult to implement practical changes based on the observations, because the etiology and causality of the relationship between volume and outcome are still not understood. The simple focus on volume does not apply to measurements of quality but can be a starting point for further studies to identify more specific factors associated with surgical quality.

[Minimum provider volumes in heart surgery]. / Erfahrungen mit Mindestmengen in der Herzchirurgie.

The introduction of minimum provider volumes for certain medical procedures has been the subject of scientific investigation and political controversy for quite a while. The core of the discussion focuses on the hypothesis that minimum provider volumes could significantly improve operative results and cost efficiency. In Germany the Fifth Volume of Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch V) set the legal stage for the implementation of minimum provider volumes. This article is a brief review on the experience with minimum provider volumes in cardiac surgery. The main focus is on coronary artery bypass surgery, as this happens to be the most frequently investigated procedure.

Drug-eluting stent task force: final report and recommendations of the working committees on cost-effectiveness/economics, access to care, and medicolegal issues.

Coronary artery disease remains a major health problem worldwide. Since introduction of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and stents, much progress has been made. Percutaneous coronary intervention, however, has been limited by restenosis (repeat obstruction of arteries that have been previously treated. Introduction of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in April 2003 was a major breakthrough in preventing restenosis. In March 2003, The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published a position statement on the clinical implications of DESs, recommending an evidence-based adoption strategy. Subsequently, in May 2003, SCAI formed a multidisciplinary Drug Eluting Stent (DES) Task Force to address the significant nonclinical ramifications posed by DESs: medicolegal, financial, and access to care. The Task Force included representatives from physician societies, industry, academia, the reimbursement community, and health policy organizations. The resultant report presents analyses, options, and recommendations regarding those nonclinical issues based on the collective experience and knowledge of the Task Force members. The Task Force trusts that this report will be of value to the diverse constituencies involved with introduction of this important new technology.