Why the study?
Angiographic equipment is central to endovascular procedures, but literature on adverse events related to this technology is limited.
What are the typology, severity, and outcomes of adverse events related to angiographic equipment?
What are the typology, severity, and outcomes of adverse events related to angiographic equipment?
Adverse events related to angiographic equipment are rare but can result in serious patient harm or death, highlighting the need for improved product design, user training, and contingency planning.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Raises awareness of rare but serious angiographic equipment events; leaves open targeted interventions for design and training.
Purpose: Angiographic equipment is a key component of healthcare infrastructure, used for endovascular procedures throughout the body. The literature on adverse events related to this technology is limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze adverse events related to angiographic devices from the US Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Methods: MAUDE data on angiographic imaging equipment from July 2011 to July 2021 were extracted. Qualitative content analysis was performed, a typology of adverse events was derived, and this was used to classify the data. Outcomes were assessed using the Healthcare Performance Improvement (HPI) and Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse event classifications. Results: There were 651 adverse events reported. Most were near misses (67%), followed by precursor safety events (20.5%), serious safety events (11.2%), and unclassifiable (1.2%). Events impacted patients (42.1%), staff (3.2%), both (1.2%), or neither (53.5%). The most common events associated with patient harm were intra-procedure system shut down, foot pedal malfunction, table movement malfunction, image quality deterioration, patient falls, and fluid damage to system. Overall, 34 (5.2%) events were associated with patient death; 18 during the procedure and 5 during patient transport to another angiographic suite/hospital due to critical failure of equipment. Conclusion: Adverse events related to angiographic equipment are rare; however, serious adverse events and deaths have been reported. This study has defined a typology of the most common adverse events associated with patient and staff harm. Increased understanding of these failures may lead to improved product design, user training, and departmental contingency planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Healy et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: