scholarly journals Vascular space occupancy (VASO) cerebral blood volume-weighted MRI identifies hemodynamic impairment in patients with carotid artery disease

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manus J. Donahue ◽  
Peter Jan van Laar ◽  
Peter C.M. van Zijl ◽  
Robert D. Stevens ◽  
Jeroen Hendrikse
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Blood Volume ◽  
Cerebral Blood Volume ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Vascular Space ◽  
Hemodynamic Impairment ◽  
Artery Disease

Convulsive Syncopes in a Patient with Carotid Artery Disease

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Terborg ◽  
G Heide ◽  
H Axer ◽  
F Joachimski ◽  
S Köhler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Artery Disease

Statins in adult patients with carotid artery disease: A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo R ◽  
Elmiro SR ◽  
Angelica LDD ◽  
Nilson PS ◽  
João Lucas OC ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Current Treatments for Carotid Artery Disease

2011 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Kosin Thupvong ◽  
Permyos Ruengsakulrach
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Artery Disease

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
pp. 1900-1906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack J. Haslett ◽  
Lindsey A. LaBelle ◽  
Xiangnan Zhang ◽  
J Mocco ◽  
Joshua Bederson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Perioperative Care ◽  
Carotid Artery Disease ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Procedural Error ◽  
Legal Databases ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Artery Disease

OBJECTIVECarotid 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.METHODSThree 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).RESULTSOne 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).CONCLUSIONSBoth 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document