Special article: Creation of a guide for the transfer of care of the malignant hyperthermia patient from ambulatory surgery centers to receiving hospital facilities.

CLINICAL PROBLEM: Volatile anesthetics and/or succinylcholine may trigger a potentially lethal malignant hyperthermia (MH) event requiring critical care crisis management. If the MH triggering anesthetic is given in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC), then the patient will need to be transferred to a receiving hospital. Before May 2010, there was no clinical guide regarding the development of a specific transfer plan for MH patients in an ASC. MECHANISM BY WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS GENERATED: A consensual process lasting 18 months among 13 representatives of the Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States, the Ambulatory Surgery Foundation, the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians led to the creation of this guide. EVIDENCE FOR THE STATEMENT: Most of the guide is based on the clinical experience and scientific expertise of the 13 representatives. The list of representatives appears in Appendix 1. The recommendation that IV dantrolene should be initiated pending transfer is also supported by clinical research demonstrating that the likelihood of significant MH complications doubles for every 30-minute delay in dantrolene administration (Anesth Analg 2010;110:498-507). STATEMENT: This guide includes a list of potential clinical problems and therapeutic interventions to assist each ASC in the development of its own unique MH transfer plan. Points to consider include receiving health care facility capabilities, indicators of patient stability and necessary report data, transport team considerations and capabilities, implementation of transfer decisions, and coordination of communication among the ASC, the receiving hospital, and the transport team. See Appendix 2 for the guide.

An international consensus study of neuroleptic malignant syndrome diagnostic criteria using the Delphi method.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of generally accepted diagnostic criteria for neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) impedes research and clinical management of patients receiving antipsychotic medications. The purpose of this study was to develop NMS diagnostic criteria reflecting a broad consensus among clinical knowledge experts, represented by an international multispecialty physician panel. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven psychiatrists, 2 neurologists, 2 anesthesiologists, and 2 emergency medicine specialists participated in a formal Delphi consensus procedure. EVIDENCE: A core bibliography consisting of 12 prominent, current reviews of the NMS literature was identified by an objective, comprehensive electronic search strategy. Each panel member was given a copy of these references and asked to examine them before commencing the survey process. CONSENSUS PROCESS: After reviewing the core bibliography, panel members were asked to list any clinical signs or symptoms or diagnostic studies that they believed, on the basis of their knowledge and clinical experience, were useful in making a diagnosis of NMS. In subsequent survey rounds, panel members assigned priority points to these items, and items that failed to receive a minimum priority score were eliminated from the next round. Information about individual panel member responses was fed back to the group anonymously in the form of the group median or mean and the number of members who had ranked or scored each survey item. The a priori consensus endpoint was defined operationally as a change of 10% or less in the mean priority score for any individual item, and an average absolute value change of 5% or less across all items, between consecutive rounds. The survey was conducted from January 2009 through September 2009. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the fifth round regarding the following criteria: recent dopamine antagonist exposure, or dopamine agonist withdrawal; hyperthermia; rigidity; mental status alteration; creatine kinase elevation; sympathetic nervous system lability; tachycardia plus tachypnea; and a negative work-up for other causes. The panel also reached a consensus on the relative importance of these criteria and on the following critical values for quantitative criteria: hyperthermia, > 100.4°F or > 38.0°C on at least 2 occasions; creatine kinase elevation, at least 4 times the upper limit of normal; blood pressure elevation, ≥ 25% above baseline; blood pressure fluctuation, ≥ 20 mm Hg (diastolic) or ≥ 25 mm Hg (systolic) change within 24 hours; tachycardia, ≥ 25% above baseline; and tachypnea, ≥ 50% above baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These diagnostic criteria significantly advance the field because they represent the consensus of an international multispecialty expert panel, include critical values, provide guidance regarding the relative importance of individual elements, and are less influenced by particular theoretical biases than most previously published criteria. They require validation before being applied in clinical settings.