Excessive opioids blamed for respiratory arrest
A MIDNIGHT VISIT TO THE HOSPITAL prompted by abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting led to a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and secondary conditions in a 67-year-old woman. She was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and given pain medication, including Demerol, morphine, and a fentanyl transdermal patch, despite the fact that she was opioid naïve, with no tolerance to strong opioid-based medications. A black box warning for fentanyl specifies that it should not be administered to opioid-naïve patients for acute or short-term pain.
During her stay in the ICU, the patient received increasing amounts of pain medication. On the third day, a physician prescribed almost 10 times the dose given on the previous day. The patient subsequently suffered respiratory arrest, resulting in brain damage that left her with no short-term memory and in need of full-time care.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM Excessive administration of opioids caused respiratory arrest and brain damage.
THE DEFENSE Respiratory arrest resulted from the patient’s underlying illnesses, not opioid overdose. The patient did not show typical signs of overdose, such as slowed heart rate and decreased breathing, and was, in fact, agitated up to the time she went into respiratory arrest.
VERDICT Confidential Missouri settlement.
COMMENT I’m seeing many malpractice suits involving the prescription of opioids. Caution and due diligence are essential.
A rising PSA, but no evaluation
A 59-YEAR-OLD MAN received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) score of 2.0 in 2003. In 2006, his score was 5.26. His primary care physician didn’t evaluate him for prostate cancer.
A year later, the patient complained of frequent, slow urination. A digital rectal examination revealed a hardened, nodular prostate. The patient’s PSA was 209. A biopsy showed stage 4 terminal prostate cancer. Computed tomography and bone scans of the abdomen and pelvis indicated metastasis to lymph nodes and bones. The patient wasn’t a candidate for surgery or radiation.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM The patient had been diagnosed with benign prostatic hypertrophy in 2005 and 2006, but had received no further evaluation. A biopsy should have been performed in 2003, at the time of the initial PSA test. If the cancer had been diagnosed and treated with radiation then, the patient’s condition wouldn’t have become terminal.
THE DEFENSE No information about the defense is available.
VERDICT $500,000 California settlement.
COMMENT We may disagree with the assessment that more aggressive evaluation would have been lifesaving. Nonetheless, the lack of follow-up and discussion with the patient makes for a very unfortunate situation.