ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Percutaneous Coronary and Peripheral Intervention.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malpractice lawsuits following percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions are not uncommon. Understanding the most common causes of medical legal action can inform clinicians and prevent future injury and litigation. Methods: LexisNexis is a legal database that compiles all publicly available court records for state and federal jury verdicts and settlements in the United States. We analyzed LexisNexis for malpractice cases involving percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020. Results: We found a total of 89 cases over the studied period, of which 55 cases were coronary interventions, 18 cases were peripheral interventions, and 16 cases did not specify the vessel location. Procedural error was alleged in 44 (49.4%) cases, complications in 42 (47.2%) cases, failure to monitor in 22 (24.7%) cases, failure to properly treat in 15 (16.9%) cases, incorrect treatment in 15 (16.9%) cases, failure to refer in 10 (11.2%) cases, lack of informed consent in 9 (10.1%) cases, and delay of intervention in 3 (3.4%) cases. The most common procedural error was vessel perforation (34.1%). Death was the most prevalent precipitating medical outcome of the cases (n = 41, 46.1%). Litigation resolution favored the defendant in 43 (48.3%) cases, the plaintiff in 13 (14.6%) cases, and a settlement was reached in 33 (37.1%) cases. Conclusions: Awareness of the most common causes of litigations among interventional cardiologists and vascular specialists may prevent future legal actions and promote implementations of processes to improve patient care. Our results suggest the importance of attentive patient care before, during, and after percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions. Procedural expectations and risks should be meticulously discussed with patients and families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.