An Analysis of Malpractice Litigation of Vascular Surgeons in Cases Involving Aortic Pathologies

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze malpractice claims for aortic pathologies and to assess if there has been a change in rate of malpractice lawsuits with evolution of endovascular therapy. Methods: Malpractice lawsuits were individually screened and compiled from the Westlaw database from 2000 to 2017 through use of relevant search terms. Data were collected of allegations, diagnoses, and outcomes of each case and compared. Results: 268 unique cases were included in this study, with aneurysms (54%, n = 145) and dissection (35%, n = 94) making up the majority. There was a defendant verdict in 53% (n = 141), plaintiff verdict in 24% (n = 65), and settlements in 23% (n = 62) of lawsuits. Litigation was higher in the Midwest and Northeast. There was a gradual decline in litigation overall, however endovascular case numbers remained constant. There was negligible difference in the primary allegation underlying the litigation for various aortic pathologies, time to litigation and award between open and endovascular procedures. Conclusion: The proportion of litigation for clinical negligence in endovascular cases amongst all vascular surgical lawsuits is increasing. As novel methods of endovascular therapy emerge, it is imperative that physicians remain vigilant to legal considerations to minimize malpractice risk.