Stroke; cardiogenic shock; severe aortic stenosis with three vessel coronary artery disease
AI-generated summary
Mr Neitsch, a 77-year-old with severe aortic stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, and reduced left ventricular function, underwent elective coronary angiography at Princess Alexandra Hospital on 21 May 2015. The procedure was complicated by perforation of the left iliac artery due to extensive calcified vascular disease and difficult vascular access. Critical lapses identified include: inadequate transfer of vascular disease severity and imaging from referring hospital; failure of the proceduralist to review available prior angiographic/ultrasound imaging; and importantly, a 9-hour delay in medical review when Mr Neitsch developed chest pain with acute ECG changes at 20:00. By the time he was reviewed at 04:00, he was in severe cardiogenic shock from myocardial ischaemia secondary to haemorrhage and his pre-existing severe coronary disease. He subsequently had a stroke and died on 29 May. The coroner identified multiple system failures in clinical communication, information transfer, and escalation protocols as contributing factors.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
cardiologyvascular surgeryintensive carepalliative care
Iatrogenic left iliac artery perforation during coronary angiography
Extensive calcified peripheral vascular disease with difficult vascular access
Inadequate transfer of clinical information and imaging from referring hospital
Failure to review available prior angiographic and vascular imaging at PAH
Haemorrhage and hypovolaemic shock from arterial perforation
Myocardial ischaemia secondary to blood loss in context of severe aortic stenosis and triple vessel coronary disease
Delayed medical review (9-hour delay) of post-procedure chest pain with acute ECG changes
Failure to escalate to RRT when patient deteriorated
Staffing shortages and suboptimal shift handover communication
Protocol violation - no baseline ECG documented on CCU admission for comparison
Coroner's recommendations
Improve documentation and information transfer from referring hospitals to PAH, particularly for complex cases with significant comorbidities
Ensure all relevant prior imaging and investigations are reviewed prior to procedures, especially in patients with known vascular disease
Develop clear protocols requiring independent assessment and examination of patients by the proceduralist, even if pre-procedure preparation is underway
Enhance escalation pathways for post-procedure chest pain with acute ECG changes, with immediate medical review expected within 15-30 minutes rather than hours
Reinforce adherence to CCU nursing protocols for management of chest pain and escalation to cardiology registrar on-call
Ensure baseline ECG is documented on CCU admission for comparison with subsequent ECGs (protocol compliance)
Strengthen training and culture around recognition of deteriorating patients and timely activation of Rapid Response Team
Ensure primary responsibility for patient safety is clearly allocated to a senior clinician in complex multi-disciplinary cases
Review staffing levels and rostering practices to ensure adequate coverage during sick leave periods, particularly in critical care units
Continue education on modern radial access techniques for interventional cardiology procedures to reduce reliance on femoral access in high-risk peripheral vascular disease patients
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.