Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2024 Apr;21(4):656-662. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.02.039. Epub 2023 Sep 27.
The nature of lawsuits involving interventional radiologists (IRs) is not well understood. The purposes of this article are to provide an overview of the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to IRs and to characterize the associated factors and outcomes.
Two large legal databases were used to search for US legal cases in which there were jury awards and settlements involving IRs in the United States. Cases were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence on the part of IRs.
A total of 389 published case summaries were identified, of which 93 were eligible to be included in the analysis. In 46% of the cases (43 of 93), medical malpractice was alleged against an individual IR, whereas in 43% (40 of 93), it was alleged against both an individual IR and a health care institution. Thirty-five percent of IR malpractice cases (33 of 93) involved the performance of a vascular procedure, most commonly embolization procedures (30% [n = 10]), stenting or angioplasty (21% [n = 7]), and diagnostic arteriography and angiography (18% [n = 6]). Twenty-six percent of cases (24 of 93) involved IR performance of a biopsy. Eighteen percent of cases (17 of 93) involved a failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment. Eleven percent of cases (10 of 93) were resolved by settlement, with an average settlement amount of $877,500 (range, $200,000-$2,700,000). Among the 72 cases that went to trial, 74% (53 of 72) resulted in judgments for the defendants, and 26% (19 of 72) resulted in judgements for the plaintiffs, with an average award of $2,012,243 (range, $101,667-$6,400,000).
Vascular procedures and biopsies were the most frequent reasons for malpractice lawsuits involving IRs. Failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment was not infrequent. Although the majority of published medical malpractice claims involving IRs resulted in judgments in favor of the defendants, the average amount awarded to plaintiffs was higher compared with previous data reported for all physicians.
涉及介入放射学家（IR）的诉讼性质尚不清楚。本文的目的是提供与 IR 相关的医疗事故诉讼的诉讼原因概述，并描述相关因素和结果。
使用两个大型法律数据库搜索美国法律案例，其中有陪审团裁决和美国 IR 相关的和解。对案例进行筛选，仅包括因 IR 疏忽而引起的诉讼案件。
共确定了 389 篇已发表的案例摘要，其中 93 篇符合纳入分析的条件。在 46%的案例（93 例中的 43 例）中，医疗事故被指控针对个体 IR，而在 43%的案例（93 例中的 40 例）中，医疗事故被指控同时针对个体 IR 和医疗机构。35%的 IR 医疗事故案件（93 例中的 33 例）涉及血管手术，最常见的是栓塞术（30%[n=10]）、支架置入术或血管成形术（21%[n=7]）和诊断性动脉造影和血管造影（18%[n=6]）。26%的案例（93 例中的 24 例）涉及 IR 进行活检。18%的案例（93 例中的 17 例）除了在治疗过程中指控医疗疏忽外，还涉及未能获得知情同意。11%的案例（93 例中的 10 例）通过和解解决，和解金额平均为 877500 美元（范围为 200000-2700000 美元）。在 72 例进入审判的案例中，74%（72 例中的 53 例）判决被告胜诉，26%（72 例中的 19 例）判决原告胜诉，平均赔偿额为 2012243 美元（范围为 101667-6400000 美元）。
血管手术和活检是涉及 IR 的医疗事故诉讼的最常见原因。除了在治疗过程中指控医疗疏忽外，未能获得知情同意并不罕见。尽管大多数涉及 IR 的已公布的医疗事故索赔案件的判决结果对被告有利，但与之前报告的所有医生相比，判给原告的平均金额更高。
