A Single-Center Retrospective Review of Patients with Suspected Malignant Hyperthermia Susceptibility

Purpose The diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia susceptibility (MHS) has significant implications for the perioperative period that may persist for generations. Anesthetic medication options are reduced, anesthetic workstations require preparation to reduce exposure to inhaled volatile anesthetics, and patients may be excluded from surgery at ambulatory centers. In this study, we sought to better characterize the etiology of MHS diagnoses in our health system and the downstream effects of this diagnosis on anesthetic care. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 55 patients with a documented concern for MHS who received care at University of Florida (UF) Health between 2014 and 2020. We characterized the etiology of the patient’s MHS diagnosis, whether this diagnosis was supported by formal genetic or muscle contracture testing, and the details of the recorded anesthetics that were delivered to these patients. Results The 55 patients with suspected MHS were evenly split between those with a family history of malignant hyperthermia (MH) (28/55) and those with a concern for MHS in their personal medical history (27/55). Of the 28 patients with a family history of MH, 16 reported that the affected family member was a first-degree relative, and two of these 16 reported that the affected family member had undergone confirmatory muscle contracture testing. Of the 27 patients with a personal history suspicious for MHS, two had undergone confirmatory genetic testing, and two patients had anesthetic records available for review where intraoperative MH was suspected and treated with dantrolene. An additional four patients were told of a concern about MHS due to another underlying diagnosis. No patients with a personal history suspicious of MHS had undergone confirmatory muscle contracture testing. These 55 patients underwent 87 anesthetics, and exclusively non-triggering anesthetic techniques were utilized in nearly all cases. In pediatric patients, some perioperative challenges were identified, related to the avoidance of mask inhalational induction. Only six of these 87 anesthetics occurred at our ambulatory surgery centers, a proportion (6.9%) lower than that of the general surgical population at UF Health (20.0%). Conclusions Among patients suspected to be MH susceptible in our health system over a six-year period, a minority (8/55) were supported by clear records of a prior MH event, confirmatory genetic or muscle contracture testing, or an underlying diagnosis closely linked to MH. The vast majority had limited documentation supporting their MH risk but continued to be treated with non-triggering anesthetics and were less likely to have surgery at an ambulatory surgery center than our overall surgical population. Among pediatric patients, some anesthetic challenges related to delivering non-triggering anesthetics were identified. Improving the documentation of index cases of MH and increasing referrals to clinical geneticists and genetic testing may be a viable route to decreasing the proportion of suspected MHS patients with a poorly characterized risk profile.