LAUSR

differences across the specialties. A total of 43% (157 of 368) of total cases involved death of the patient. Among the four specialties, there was a significant (P 1⁄4 .0004) difference in the primary allegation (informed consent, preprocedure negligence, intraprocedural complications, or postprocedural complications) underlying the litigation (Fig). For CTS and VS, there was a predominance of informed consent and preprocedure negligence allegations (70% [7 of 10] and 52% [28 of 54] respectively). Intraprocedural negligence was the most common allegation for IR (59% [23 of 39]), while allegations were more evenly distributed among IC. Conclusions: Key issues were identified regardingmalpractice litigation involving the specialties that commonly perform endovascular procedures. Despite the increasing number of ICs doing peripheral interventions, a largemajority of IC cases were related to coronary treatments. A surprisingly large percentage of VS cases were related to seemingly minor cases. There were significant interspecialty differences in the primary underlying allegations. As the scope of endovascular procedures broadens and deepens, it is important for clinicians to be aware of the legal considerations relevant to their practice.