So I've been doing a bit of reading on malignant hyperthermia (MH) and learned a few things.
Here are some interesting facts on MH, presented in no particular order...
Most patients who suffer MH have had prior uneventful anaesthetics. In fact, in most cases the patient had 2 or more uneventful anaesthetics previously!! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20081135
Suxamethonium with volatile anaesthetic seems to be a potent trigger for MH. The relative risk of MH when using sux plus vapour is 19.6 compared to vapour alone.😬 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223104
Some have doubted that suxamethonium alone can trigger MH, but it absolutely can! The Canadians found 20 cases of sux-induced MH, all proven with muscle biopsy.
(25% occurred in ECT or ER so even trace volatile isn't an explanation.) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23842196
MH sux [see what I did there!], but not as much as it used to.
Dantrolene is credited for reducing mortality from ~80% to 1-2%. In fact, in the original study the treatment group had a mortality of 0%, and the delayed group 75%!! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7039419
There’s no maximum dose of dantrolene according to most guidelines, but if things aren’t getting better after 10mg/kg, reconsider the diagnosis.
This paper identified one patient who received 6,860mg (100mg/kg)!! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20081135
“Dantrium” 20mg ampoules are the only approved dantrolene in Australia; however you may find 25mg, 50mg or 250mg on your trolley. TGA exemptions for import are granted in times of shortage and these products hang around on the trolleys. apps.tga.gov.au/Prod/msi/Searc…
Contrary to common wisdom, increased body temperature is often an early sign of MH. In 63% of cases, hyperthermia was one of the first three signs to appear, and in 4% it was the singular first sign of the crisis. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20081135
Whether a patient had core body temperature monitoring seems to be a strong predictor of mortality. Some have advocated that core temperature should be required for every GA lasting >30 minutes. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25268394
There’s some ill-defined link between MH and a heat/exercise-induced MH-like illness.
Hx of exercise/heat-induced muscle cramps / rhabdo / heat stroke may increase risk of MH, but no-one really knows what to do next. Some factors may help to stratify risk: insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00…
Similarly, MH-susceptible pts may suffer heat/exercise-induced illness which resembles MH (sometimes called “awake-MH”) and can be fatal.
It’s not clear how to counsel these patients, but their coaches etc should probably be made aware of symptoms. mhaus.org/patients-and-f…
OK; final fact:
You may already know that the first known survival from MH was at @TheRMH by Dr James Villiers in 1960. Pt was a 21-year-old with a compound fracture post MVA; 10 family members had already died of unknown cause while under GA!!
But what you may not know is...
The GP was also well-aware of the pt's family Hx. So much so that when as a 12-year-old he needed an appendicectomy, the GP performed it under local anaesthetic.
That's right- the GP did an appendicectomy on a 12-year-old under local!!
That's all, tweeps. anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?a…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Random physiology / physics / HEMS / airway thread here! 🥳🧐😋
Everyone knows that as you go up in altitude the pressure in an ETT cuff, or a bag of chips, increases, right? But have you ever tried to explain why?
Hints:
- It's not Boyle's law, and
- Technically, it doesn't!
"😠 WHAT!?" I hear you exclaim. "Of course the pressure increases! Anyone who's taken a bag of chips on a plane can see that! Look; it's even been proven:" doi.org/10.1111/j.1365…
Sure, OK, but then why?
This has confused a lot of people. Most papers and textbooks will 'explain' this by make a passing reference to Boyle's law and quickly moving on. But @drtlowes figured this out and published a nice explanation in 2004. (Give him a follow! 👍) doi.org/10.1111/j.1365…
Here's the first thing I LOVE about this paper: an engineer is an author!
Doctors are so frequently happy to step into other fields (law, stats, engineering, etc) without ever asking the experts for their input. Not these guys- they actually got an engineer involved!
They used a quantitative technique to measure the actual aerosol levels (in five different sizes, no less) at the intubator's head. No exploding fluorescent balloons in this study! They obtained actual aerosol numbers, measured objectively, which were generated with a neb.
Surely if the stakes are higher we should be more careful in our decision-making, not less. If you’re not willing to treat one patient based on a press-release, why would you be willing to treat one hundred?
And while people who were involved in recruiting for the study may feel like they can evaluate it just from a 3-line summary, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that those of us elsewhere do not feel that a press release is enough for us to decide to safely change our practice.
And, it was only two weeks ago that we were burned by the retraction of a major peer-reviewed trial in a top-notch journal. nytimes.com/reuters/2020/0…
My thread on the @Anaes_Journal@IntubateCovid paper, and why it doesn't say what you might think it does.
There's also a really important finding that hasn't received anywhere near the attention it needs... but that's a teaser for the end of the thread!
@IntubateCovid used (and still uses) an online app to prospectively record clinicians' exposures to intubating suspected or actual COVID-19 patients, and then follow to see which developed symptoms and/or the disease.
Data is still being collected: link: intubatecovid.org/info
The authors must be congratulated for this novel and swift study! They’ve collected critical data prospectively, and as they continue to collect and publish more I think we'll gain a much better understanding of the risk of COVID-19 intubations.
You can contribute at link above!
Let's do a 'deep dive' into this @NEJM intubation-box paper. Although it won't be too deep; the paper itself is only a page long! nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
The first thing is that this paper is not a 'study'; it's a Letter to the Editor. Letters are not peer-reviewed and it's not actually fair to the authors to critique it as a study either.
(It also means you may not get CPD points for reading it... if that's important to you! 😅)
Still, it's a very unusual letter with the page being visited almost every second of the day! It's not entirely surprising as this is the only journal publication in the world's literature to discuss intubation boxes. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
When this is all done, I think we Australian doctors need to write a joint letter to our public health specialists apologising for thinking that our three-months of reading and experience made us more qualified to respond to a pandemic than them.
A couple of points to clarify based on responses:
- Politicians are not public health physicians! My tweet wasn’t about politicians.
- While some PH specialists are not commenting publically, many are. Some agree with AHPPC and some don’t. That’s fine! Listen to their discussion, but don’t mistakenly think that qualifies you as a PH expert. Listening to two neurologists disagree doesn’t make you a neurologist.