An analysis of malpractice litigation in the surgical management of carotid artery disease

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York; and
  • 2 University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Carotid artery disease is a common illness that can pose a significant risk if left untreated. Treatment via carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) can also lead to complications. Given the risk of adverse events related to treating, or failing to treat, carotid artery disease, this is a possible area for litigation. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the medicolegal factors involved in treating patients suffering carotid artery disease and to compare litigation related to CEA and CAS.

METHODS

Three large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to untreated carotid artery disease, CEA, and CAS. Search terms included “endarterectomy,” “medical malpractice,” “carotid,” “stenosis,” “stenting,” “stent,” and combinations of those words. Three types of cases were considered relevant: 1) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CEA or perioperative care (CEA-related cases); 2) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CAS or perioperative care (CAS-related cases); and 3) cases in which the plaintiff alleged that a CEA or CAS should have been performed (failure-to-treat [FTT] cases).

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four CEA-related cases, 3 CAS-related cases, and 67 FTT cases were identified. Cases resulted in 133 verdicts for the defense (59%), 64 settlements (29%), and 27 plaintiff verdicts (12%). The average payout in cases that were settled outside of court was $1,097,430 and the average payout in cases that went to trial and resulted in a plaintiff verdict was $2,438,253. Common allegations included a failure to diagnose and treat carotid artery disease in a timely manner, treating with inappropriate indications, procedural error, negligent postprocedural management, and lack of informed consent. Allegations of a failure to timely treat known carotid artery disease were likely to lead to a payout (60% of cases involved a payout). Allegations of procedural error, specifically where the resultant injury was nerve injury, were relatively less likely to lead to a payout (28% of cases involved a payout).

CONCLUSIONS

Both diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease has serious medicolegal implications and risks. In cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict, the payouts were significantly higher than cases resolved outside the courtroom. Knowledge of common allegations in diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease as well as performing CEA and CAS may benefit neurosurgeons. The lack of CAS-related litigation suggests these procedures may entail a lower risk of litigation compared to CEA, even accounting for the difference in the frequency of both procedures.

ABBREVIATIONS CAS = carotid artery stenting; CEA = carotid endarterectomy; FTT = failure to treat; MI = myocardial infarction.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Jack Haslett: Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. jackjhaslett@gmail.com.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online May 24, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.3.JNS182934.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Abbott AL, Bladin CF, Levi CR, Chambers BR: What should we do with asymptomatic carotid stenosis? Int J Stroke 2:2739, 2007

  • 2

    Bal BS: An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:339347, 2009

  • 3

    Bhatt A, Safdar A, Chaudhari D, Clark D, Pollak A, Majid A, : Medicolegal considerations with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in stroke: a systematic review. Stroke Res Treat 2013:562564, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Brott TG, Hobson RW II, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, : Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 363:1123, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Daniels AH, Ruttiman R, Eltorai AEM, DePasse JM, Brea BA, Palumbo MA: Malpractice litigation following spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 27:470475, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Durand WM, Eltorai AEM, Shantharam G, DePasse JM, Kuris EO, Hersey AE, : Medical malpractice claims following incidental durotomy due to spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:940945, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Ederle J, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Bonati LH, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ, : Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:985997, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Fager CA: Malpractice issues in neurological surgery. Surg Neurol 65:416421, 2006

  • 9

    Fager CA: Professional liability and potential liability. Neurosurgery 16:866872, 1985

  • 10

    Gupta R, Griessenauer CJ, Moore JM, Adeeb N, Patel AS, Ogilvy CS, : An analysis of malpractice litigation related to the management of brain aneurysms. J Neurosurg 127:10771083, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Halm EA, Tuhrim S, Wang JJ, Rockman C, Riles TS, Chassin MR: Risk factors for perioperative death and stroke after carotid endarterectomy: results of the New York Carotid Artery Surgery Study. Stroke 40:221229, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hartmann A, Hupp T, Koch HC, Dollinger P, Stapf C, Schmidt R, : Prospective study on the complication rate of carotid surgery. Cerebrovasc Dis 9:152156, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A: Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 365:629636, 2011

  • 14

    Lichtman JH, Jones MR, Leifheit EC, Sheffet AJ, Howard G, Lal BK, : Carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in the US Medicare population, 1999-2014. JAMA 318:10351046, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, Studdert DM: National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood) 29:15691577, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Oh K, Savulionyte G, Muluk S: Malpractice litigation in the endovascular era. J Vasc Surg 68:219224, 2018

  • 17

    Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Brückmann H, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Hartmann M, : 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 368:12391247, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Rosenfield K, Matsumura JS, Chaturvedi S, Riles T, Ansel GM, Metzger DC, : Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. N Engl J Med 374:10111020, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Rovit RL, Simon AS, Drew J, Murali R, Robb J: Neurosurgical experience with malpractice litigation: an analysis of closed claims against neurosurgeons in New York State, 1999 through 2003. J Neurosurg 106:11081114, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Seabury SA, Chandra A, Lakdawalla DN, Jena AB: On average, physicians spend nearly 11 percent of their 40-year careers with an open, unresolved malpractice claim. Health Aff (Millwood) 32:111119, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Siddiq F, Adil MM, Malik AA, Qureshi MH, Qureshi AI: Effect of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial results on the performance of carotid artery stent placement and carotid endarterectomy in the United States. Neurosurgery 77:726732, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, : Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 354:20242033, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Svider PF, Vidal GP, Zumba O, Mauro AC, Haser PB, Graham A, : Adverse events in carotid endarterectomy from a medicolegal perspective. Vasc Endovascular Surg 48:425429, 2014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Thomas R, Gupta R, Griessenauer CJ, Moore JM, Adeeb N, Motiei-Langroudi R, : Medical malpractice in neurosurgery: a comprehensive analysis. World Neurosurg 110:e552e559, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Vidmar N: Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:367375, 2009

  • 26

    Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, : Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 351:14931501, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 74 74 46
Full Text Views 46 46 31
PDF Downloads 47 47 27
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0