Membership information +44 113 241 0727
Medicolegal advice +44 113 243 6436

Living up to expectations

01 January 2010

Mr G was a 62-year-old office worker; he was overweight (BMI 29) and suffered from exercise-related angina. Mr G had several risk factors for ischaemic heart disease including smoking, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia. Following a positive exercise test, a coronary angiography confirmed triple vessel coronary artery disease with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%. He was referred to Mr F, a consultant cardiothoracic surgeon, for consideration of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

In view of his symptoms and the severity of his coronary artery disease, Mr F strongly advised Mr G to undergo surgery on both prognostic and symptomatic grounds. He also explained the risks of the operation, stating that the risk of death was below 3%. In view of the seriousness of his condition, Mr G agreed to be put on the waiting list for CABG. He was strongly advised by Mr F to stop smoking and lose weight before the operation.

Mr G underwent an uneventful triple bypass. Mr F documented the use of bilateral internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts; following surgery, Mr G made a good recovery, although a control chest x-ray showed an elevation of the right hemidiaphragm. Mr F and his team decided not to share this finding with Mr G in order to avoid giving him unnecessary reasons for concern. Mr G was eventually discharged home on the seventh postoperative day, having made a good recovery.

Six weeks later, Mr G attended clinic for a postoperative surgical review. He mentioned that he was angina free but complained of dyspnoea on moderate exertion. Mr F put this down to the fact that Mr G was still recovering from the operation and said that “things would get better soon”. Mr G was discharged from the clinic back to the care of his own GP.

The shortness of breath persisted during the next few months. Mr G mentioned this to his cardiologist Dr T. Dr T reviewed the chest x-rays. He arranged an echocardiogram that showed a poor left ventricular function with significant dyskinesis in the inferior and lateral walls of the left ventricle. Pulmonary function test showed a mild reduction in total lung capacity. A chest fluoroscopy test revealed paralysis of the right hemidiaphragm. The final diagnosis was right phrenic nerve palsy secondary to surgical damage.

Mr G made a claim against Mr F because of the damage to his right phrenic nerve during the operation. The case was defended successfully, based on the facts that damage to the right phrenic nerve is a rare, but known, complication of right mammary artery harvesting and that his deteriorated heart function, rather than the paralysed diaphragm, was the likely cause of his breathlessness.

Learning points

  • Most doctors have a claim against them during their practising lives. Sometimes, as in this particular case, the patient considers that the development of surgical complications outweighs the benefits of a life-saving procedure. 
  • Mr F was not open about the complication; he should have warned Mr G as soon as it happened, as part of the ongoing consent process. If he had disclosed the complication and explained why it had occurred, the claim may never have arisen. 
  • Patients should not be given false expectations. Surgical procedures do not always result in a complete cure, but can slow down deterioration and reduce the risks of serious complications. In this case, Mr G was led to believe that the operation would rid him of all his angina and dyspnoea. 
  • Surgical complications are not necessarily a result of medical negligence. However, when these do occur, giving an open clear explanation to the patient of the possible causes and consequences decreases the likelihood of complaints and claims.