Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Percutaneous Coronary and Peripheral Intervention

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.

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.

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.

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.