Home Site Map Contact Us Join ASA Members Only
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
April 1997
Volume 61
Number 4
 

Current Diagnostic Testing for Malignant Hyperthermia

Thomas E. Nelson, Ph.D.


Molecular genetic screening for malignant hyperthermia (MH) susceptibility is not an option today. The gene coding for the ryanodine receptor calcium release channel (Ry1) is on chromosome 19 and, at the present time, 15 different mutations in Ry1 have been linked to MH susceptibility. However, about 50 percent of susceptible families do not have linkage of MH to chromosome 19. What is evident at this stage of our understanding is that MH is genetically heterogeneous and that simple genetic screening will not be complete for several years.

Contracture Testing

Consequently, the current method of diagnosing MH by contracture testing will remain the only means for detecting susceptibility. The contracture test is invasive, expensive and requires that the patient go to one of the few diagnostic centers so that the test can be performed on freshly biopsied tissue. The vastus lateralis is the muscle of choice, but if the patient is having another surgical procedure (e.g., abdominal), then other muscle such as rectus abdominis can be tested.

Approximately 2-3g of carefully dissected muscle is required to perform the three pharmacologic tests, each in triplicate. One test exposes the muscle to halothane, 3 percent bubbled through the muscle bath and a contracture tension 0.5-0.7g indicates an MH positive response.

The second test exposes the muscle to increasing concentrations of caffeine so that a caffeine dose versus tension response curve is obtained. Muscle that produces contracture at 2 mM caffeine 0.2-0.3g indicates an MH positive response. Normal muscle usually starts developing tension at 4 mM caffeine.

A third test, not used by all centers, combines halothane and caffeine, and the tension response to caffeine in both MH and normal muscle is much greater when halothane is present.

Based on guidelines established by the North American MH Registry, these tests provide diagnostic sensitivity of 97 percent and specificity of 78 percent. (Exact cutoff values may vary among diagnostic centers, based upon each center's control values.)

Muscle Biopsy Test Candidates

Who should and who should not have a muscle biopsy for the diagnosis of MH, and what is the value of this diagnostic test? The answers to these questions are related to expectations of the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the patient and the patient's family.

Some surgeons may refuse to perform elective procedures until the MH diagnosis is established. Some anesthesiologists also choose to defer elective procedures until muscle contracture testing is done. One argument against these approaches is whether or not the test results will alter the surgical and anesthetic management of the patient, in any manner, in the future.

If the biopsy test results are negative, will the patient have triggering anesthetics administered? This question and the issues surrounding it are relevant to arguments regarding the value of MH muscle testing, but it is not the most important issue. If we assume that muscle testing does not alter patient management, then compelling reasons remain for performing the muscle test. Those reasons include determining susceptibility of the proband and, when MH is found, determining which parent of the proband carries the MH gene. Unless muscle testing for MH is carried out to this extent, a significant population of individuals (proband relatives) will be given a false diagnosis of MH susceptibility.

The consequences of having an MH positive diagnosis can be significant: it will prevent enlistment into armed forces, may affect employment and insurability, and certainly will alter medical management. The uncertain diagnosis of MH may be unacceptable to the individual patient or to the patient's relatives. Thus, a patient who develops masseter muscle rigidity (MMR) only during induction and is labeled "possibly MH susceptible" has a 50-percent chance of not being susceptible to MH. The identification of susceptible and not susceptible probands can be of great benefit to family members as well as the individual patient.

Muscle contracture testing of all MH probands is strongly recommended. Another important reason for continuing muscle contracture testing for MH diagnosis is to advance our understanding about the molecular genetic bases (basis) for this disease and to bring us closer to a simple diagnostic screening test. The molecular geneticists who are investigating MH are totally dependent on muscle contracture phenotyping for the identification of MH susceptible families. Without this information, genetic research cannot go forward.

The following are ordinary reasons for which patients are referred to MH diagnostic centers, including several case examples:

1. Either or both the surgeon and anesthesiologist are not willing to proceed with an elective procedure until diagnostic testing is completed.

2. The individual patient (or the minor patient's parents) wish to have the test performed. There are a variety of reasons why individuals request to have testing done:

a) A grandparent with MH family history knows that if they have the muscle biopsy and test negative, their children and grandchildren have no greater chance of being MH susceptible than any other person in the population. There is little to no benefit to the grandparent but great benefit to other family members if the test result is negative.

b) Parents of a clinically and biopsy-confirmed MH proband have no information to determine which parent contributed the MH gene to the child. Both parents have several siblings with children and the MH diagnosis has affected them as well. By determining which parent is the MH gene carrier, the other parent's relatives become relieved from the MH-susceptible label.

c) A young person with family history wishes to enlist into the armed services but has an unproved MH diagnosis. A negative MH test result will remove this concern.

d) A 7-year-old child develops MMR after halothane induction and the administration of succinylcholine I.V. for a tonsillectomy. The surgery is postponed; the CK level increases to 20,000 and a small amount of myoglobin is detected in the urine. After being informed about MH and the 50-percent chance of it being in the family, the parents elect to have the child tested to confirm or deny the diagnosis because of the impact it will have on other members of the family.

Current Muscle Biopsy Procedure

Currently, there are 10 muscle biopsy centers operating in the United States. The pharmacologic testing of freshly biopsied muscle requires specialized training and equipment and is very nonroutine. Most centers do the muscle biopsy as an outpatient procedure using either general or regional anesthesia. Surgeons are selected to do the biopsy, which must be done without damage to the tissue, and the dissection must produce fascicles that can be electrically stimulated to contract (i.e., "twitch viable"). The vastus lateralis is identified and the biopsy is obtained along the muscle fascicle lines. The vastus fascicles, ca. 2 mm diameter and 2-2.5 cm long, are dissected from the biopsied muscle and mounted in temperature (37°C) controlled muscle contraction chambers containing Krebs-Ringer solution equilibrated with 95 percent O2, 5 percent CO2. Maximally stimulated, each fascicle is stretched to optimal length for twitch tension and then treated either with halothane or caffeine.

Patients are discharged to return home, and the biopsy results are available within 24 hours of testing.

Thomas E. Nelson, Ph.D., is Professor of Anesthesia, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He is also a member of the Professional Advisory Council of the Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States as well as the director of a diagnostic test center for malignant hyperthermia.
E-mail the author.

 


return to top

Home >Newsletters >April 1997Home >Test

 


FEATURES

Malignant Hyperthermia: An Issue to Explore

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors