Membership information 800 616 7055
Medicolegal advice 800 616 7055

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.
Telerik.OpenAccess.TrackedList`1[System.Guid]