Medical Malpractice in Interventional Cardiology: Identifying Patterns and Areas for Improvement

Abstract

Introduction: The feared possibility of involvement in a medical malpractice lawsuit ultimately becomes reality for many physicians in high-risk specialties including cardiology. In a survey of cardiologists and fellows, 15.9% of those from the United States and 13.5% from China stated they were influenced by the fear of malpractice litigation in at least half of all cases they managed daily. A study of 40,916 physicians covered by a large nationwide professional liability insurer from 1991 to 2005 found that the percentage of cardiologists facing a malpractice claim each year is between 7.5%-10%, above the average across all physicians. This study analyzes interventional cardiology malpractice claims by specific procedure and allegation types. Methods: Seventy-nine cardiology malpractice claims involving procedures were identified in a major nationwide legal database (over 200,000 cases) called VerdictSearch. An exemption was obtained from the Yale University Institutional Review Board. Baseline patient characteristics, reasons for lawsuit, and case outcomes were recorded. Statistical analysis included percentage distributions and Fisher’s exact test. Results: A defendant verdict was reached in 64.6% of cases; plaintiƒ verdict, 21.5% (with average payout $5,212,719.79); and settlement, 13.9%. Death was the injury in 48.1% of cases and did not influence the likelihood of a plaintiƒ verdict. Of the 53.2% of cases involving cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, or stenting, periprocedural injury was alleged in 83.3%, lack of informed consent in 7.1%, failure to perform the correct procedure in a timely manner or at all in 14.3%, and performance of an unnecessary procedure in 7.1% (Figure 1). The most common injury type was arterial (non-coronary), including injury to the catheterization site, followed by coronary artery dissection or tamponade (Figure 2). Electrophysiology procedures were the next most common category, and receiving a defendant verdict was significantly less likely for these cases than any other type. A cardiothoracic or vascular surgeon was named as a co-defendant in 25.3% of cases. In 12.6% of cases, cardiologist failure to obtain timely surgical consultation or ensure backup surgeon availability during procedure performance was alleged. Discussion: Comprehensively reviewing interventional cardiology malpractice claims can elucidate common contributory factors to adverse outcomes and practice improvement opportunities. This study ’ s results suggest, for instance, that securing appropriate cardiothoracic surgical backup prior to a catheterization, angioplasty, or stent procedure would significantly decrease the number of lawsuits. Diligence in the informed consent process should also be prioritized, as this area generated allegations in 7.1% of cases. Though VerdictSearch is a large, nationwide legal database, its content is limited to those attorneys, courts, and states who choose to report cases. However, any selection biases may be bidirectional and ultimately cancel each other out, since the attorney on the prevailing side of every case theoretically has equal incentive to report it to a public database so the verdict can be used as a marketing tool for that attorney. By uniquely stratifying cardiology malpractice claims within a large nationwide database by specific procedure types and allegations, this study points to factors that commonly contribute to adverse patient outcomes and enables cardiologists to reflect upon opportunities for clinical practice improvement.