R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access
Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia
diagnosis in obstetric patients in the United
States, 2003 to 2014
, Henry Rosenberg
and Guohua Li
Background: The cost-benefit of stocking dantrolene in maternity units for treating malignant hyperthermia (MH)
has been recently questioned because of the low incidence of MH crisis in the general population and the low
utilization of general anesthesia in obstetrics. However, no study has examined the prevalence of MH susceptibility
in obstetrics. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of MH diagnosis and associated factors in obstetric patients.
Methods: Data for this study came from the National Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2014, a 20% nationally
representative sample of discharge records from community hospitals. A diagnosis of MH due to anesthesia was
identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 995.86. MH
prevalence was estimated according to the delivery mode and patient and hospital characteristics.
Results: During the 12-year study period, 47,178,322 delivery-related discharges [including 15,175,127 (32.2%)
cesarean deliveries] were identified. Of them, 215 recorded a diagnosis of MH, yielding a prevalence of 0.46 per 100,
000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.40 to 0.52]. The prevalence of MH diagnosis in cesarean deliveries was 0.81 per
100,000 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97), compared with 0.29 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.35) in vaginal deliveries
(P< 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that cesarean delivery was associated with a significantly
increased risk of MH diagnosis [adjusted rate ratio (aOR) 2.88; 95% CI, 2.19 to 3.80]. Prevalence of MH diagnosis was
lower in Hispanics than in non-Hispanic whites (aOR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.76) and higher in the South than in the
Northeast census regions (aOR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.96).
Conclusion: The prevalence of MH-susceptibility is about 1 in 125,000 in cesarean deliveries, similar to the
prevalence reported in non-obstetrical surgery inpatients. The findings of this study suggest that stocking
dantrolene in maternity units is justified.
Keywords: Childbirth, Malignant hyperthermia, Obstetrics
Malignant hyperthermia (MH) is a pharmacogenetic dis-
order of the skeletal muscle triggered by halogenated in-
halational agents or the depolarizing muscle relaxant
succinylcholine [1,2]. Exposure to triggering agents can
lead to a rapid and uncontrolled calcium release in skel-
etal muscle cells cytoplasm and to a potentially lethal
hyper-metabolic crisis among susceptible patients .
Exposure to succinylcholine only, without volatile
anesthetics, can also triggers a MH crisis [3,4]. MH sus-
ceptibility is related to defects in the ryanodine receptor
1 (RyR1) or in the Ca
1.1 channel, two calcium channels
located in the sarcoplasmic reticulum membrane, or in
the Stac3 protein required for effective colocation of
RyR1 and Ca
1.1 . Defects are caused by mutations in
the genes encoding for RyR1, Ca
1.1 (CACNA1S), or
Stac3. Despite the increased awareness of this condition,
improved intraoperative monitoring of end-tidal carbon
dioxide allowing early detection of MH crisis, and avail-
ability of an effective treatment (dantrolene), prognosis
of MH crisis is still poor. The 2007–2012 report from
the North American Malignant Hyperthermia Registry
© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
* Correspondence: email@example.com
Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University College of Physicians
and Surgeons, 622 West 168th Street, PH5-505, New York, NY 10032, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19
of the Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the
United States indicates a case fatality rate of nearly 10%,
with increases in MH-associated morbidity and mortality
when dantrolene administration is delayed [3,6,7].
MH susceptibility is a rare disorder. Reported preva-
lence of MH diagnosis in studies using hospital discharge
records from administrative data ranges from 0.18 per
100,000 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12–0.25) in
ambulatory surgery center patients to 0.96 (95% CI,
0.75–1.41) in surgical inpatients [8,9]. The low fre-
quency of MH crises and the cost of stocking dantro-
lene have given rise to concern about the cost-benefit
of the recommendation of the Malignant Hyperther-
mia Association of the United States (MHAUS) that
dantrolene be made immediately available (for admin-
istration within 10 min) in operating room areas, es-
pecially in facilities with a low utilization of general
anesthesia and triggering agents such as maternity
units [10,11]. MHAUS is a patient safety and
advocacy organization and its recommendations are
used by accrediting agencies, such as the Joint
Commission, to assess preparedness for an MH event
during survey visits. However, no study has specific-
ally examined the prevalence of MH susceptibility in
obstetric patients .
Using a nationally representative sample of community
hospital discharges records in the United States between
2003 and 2014, we estimated the prevalence of MH
diagnosis in delivery-related discharges and assessed pa-
tient- and hospital-level factors associated with the
prevalence of MH diagnosis.
Data system and study sample
Data for this study came from the National Inpatient
Sample (NIS). NIS is part of the Healthcare Cost and
Utilization Project (HCUP) sponsored by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality. It is a stratified sample
of approximately 20% of discharge records from com-
munity hospitals in the United States, excluding rehabili-
tation and long-term acute care hospitals. Community
hospitals are defined as “all non-Federal, short-term,
general, and other specialty hospitals, excluding hospital
units of institutions.”Included among community hospi-
tals are specialty hospitals such as obstetrics-gynecology,
ear-nose-throat, orthopedic, and pediatric institutions.
Also included are public hospitals and academic medical
centers. The sampling procedure is stratified according
to 6 hospital characteristics: census geographical area,
urban or rural location, ownership, teaching status, and
number of beds.
For each discharge, the NIS includes patient character-
istics, and up to 15 procedural codes and 30 diagnostic
codes defined in the International Classification of
Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-
CM). Discharges are weighted to permit inferences for a
nationally representative population. Sampling weights
before 2011 were updated in 2012 to take into consider-
ation the 2012 sampling re-design. Detailed information
on NIS data, methodology, and variables is publicly
The study sample consisted of all discharges indicating
labor and delivery in the NIS between January 1, 2003,
and December 31, 2014. They were identified with a
combination of ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure
codes developed by Kuklina et al. 
The outcome was a diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia
(MH) recorded in the discharge record, identified ac-
cording to the ICD-9-CM diagnosis code 995.86 (“Ma-
lignant hyperthermia due to anesthesia”).
Patient and hospital characteristics
Patient age, race or ethnicity, hospital length-of-stay, and
vital status at discharge were recorded directly from the
NIS. In the NIS, Hispanic ethnicity is considered as a
distinct racial/ethnic group. Excess hospital stay was de-
fined as a stay greater than the 90th percentile (3 days
for a vaginal delivery and 5 days for a cesarean delivery).
The Charlson comorbidity index and the comorbidity
index for obstetric patients were calculated using previ-
ously described ICD-9-CM algorithms [14–16]. The co-
morbidity index for obstetric patients was designed
specifically for use in obstetric patient populations. It in-
cludes maternal age and 20 maternal conditions (e.g., se-
vere preeclampsia/eclampsia), that are predictive of
maternal end-organ injury or death during the delivery
hospitalization through 30 days postpartum. Delivery
was categorized as vaginal or cesarean delivery. The fol-
lowing hospital characteristics were recorded directly
from the NIS: location and teaching status (categorized
as rural, urban non-teaching and urban teaching) and
geographic region defined by the US Census Bureau
(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West).
Statistical analysis was performed with R version 3.5.0 (R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria)
and specific packages (survey for analysis of complex
survey samples). It followed the HCUP recommenda-
tions for the analysis of complex survey data .
Results are expressed as count (% or per 100,000).
Both unweighted and weighted counts were calculated
using individual discharge weight provided by the NIS.
Univariate comparison of categorical variables between
discharges with and without the diagnosis of MH used
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 2 of 9
Chi-squared test and of continuous variables Wilcoxon
The prevalence of MH diagnosis was calculated overall
and according to the delivery mode (cesarean or vaginal
delivery). Furthermore, stratified analysis was performed
according to: 1) patient age, race, and comorbidity in-
dexes; 2) hospital location/teaching status and geo-
graphic region; and 3) 3 time periods (2003–2006,
2007–2010, and 2011–2014).
The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of MH diagnosis were es-
timated using a weighted multivariable logistic regression
model with MH as the independent variable, the individual
following variables as dependent variables: age, race,
Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidity index for obstet-
ric patients, mode of delivery (vaginal or cesarean), hospital
location and teaching status, geographic region, and the 3
time periods. For categorical variables with missing values,
a dummy indicator for missing values was created.
During the 12-year study period, 9,892,712 delivery-
related discharges were identified in the NIS (weighted
number 47,178,322) (Fig. 1). Of them, 3,181,978 (32.2%)
were cesarean delivery discharges (weighted number 15,
A diagnosis of MH was recorded in 46 delivery-related
discharges (weighted number 215), yielding a prevalence
of MH in obstetrics of 0.46 per 100,000 delivery-related
discharges (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.40–0.52)
(Fig. 2). In cesarean delivery discharges, a diagnosis of
MH was recorded in 26 cases (weighted number 123),
yielding a prevalence of 0.81 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.67–
0.97). In vaginal delivery discharges, a diagnosis of MH
was recorded in 20 cases (weighted number 92), yielding
a prevalence of 0.29 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.23–0.35).
The prevalence of MH in cesarean delivery discharges
was significantly higher than in vaginal delivery dis-
charges [P-value < 0.001; crude OR 2.83; 95% CI, 2.16 to
3.71; aOR 2.88; 95% CI, 2.19 to 3.80].
Prevalence of MH in delivery-related discharges ac-
cording to patient characteristics, hospital characteris-
tics, and time period is presented in Table 1. On the
bivariate level, the prevalence of MH diagnosis was sig-
nificantly lower in Hispanics than in non-Hispanic
Whites and significantly higher in the Midwest and
South census regions than in the Northeast census re-
gion, and in rural hospitals than in urban hospitals. No
significant difference was observed across age groups,
comorbidity indexes groups, or time periods. Multivari-
able adjustment revealed two factors associated with
MH diagnosis: race/ethnicity (Hispanic versus non-
Hispanic White, aOR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.76) and
geographic census region (South versus Northeast, aOR
2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.96).
All the patients with a diagnosis of MH were alive
at the time of discharge. The proportion of discharges
with an excess length of hospital stay (i.e., 3 days for
a vaginal delivery and 5 days for a cesarean delivery)
was higher in discharges with a diagnosis of MH than
in discharges without a diagnosis of MH (15.3% ver-
sus 4.1%, P-value < 0.001).
National Inpatient Sample 2003-2014
9,892,712 delivery-related discharges
3,181,978 cesarean delivery discharges
83,484,342 discharges excluded
46 delivery-related discharges recording MH
26 cesarean delivery discharges recording MH
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the study (MH: malignant hyperthermia; N
: weighted number)
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 3 of 9
This study was designed to help close a knowledge
gap in the epidemiology of MH. Specifically, we pro-
vide an estimate of the prevalence of MH diagnosis
in the obstetric patient population using a nationally
representative sample over a 12-year period. The
prevalence of 0.81 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97)
in cesarean delivery discharges is similar to the one
reported in non-obstetrical surgery inpatients. Using
New York State administrative data from 2001 to
2005, Brady et al. reported a prevalence of MH diag-
nosis in inpatient surgical discharges of 0.96 (95% CI,
0.67 to 1.24) . The prevalence reported in the
present study is lower than the rate previously re-
ported using NIS data from 2000 to 2005 for the gen-
eral inpatient population (1.12 per 100,000, 95% CI,
1.08 to 1.17) . The discrepancy is likely due to
is restricted to obstetric patients and the prevalence
of MH diagnosis in women is only about a third of
the one in men [8,19].
We identified several patient- and hospital-level
characteristics associated with a higher prevalence of
MH diagnosis. We observed a lower prevalence of
MH diagnosis in Hispanics compared with non-
Hispanic White patients. To our knowledge, this find-
ing has not been reported before and if confirmed,
warrants further investigation to elicit the underlying
mechanisms. The lower prevalence of MH diagnosis
in Hispanic obstetric patients is unlikely due to a
lower utilization of general anesthesia and exposure
to triggering agents because two previous studies have
reported a higher utilization of general anesthesia in
minority patients, including Hispanics [20,21]. We
also observed a geographic variation in the prevalence
of MH diagnosis, with an elevated prevalence in the
South region. Geographical variation is explained by
the concentration of MH families in a given geo-
graphicarea. Rosero et al. also observed a higher
prevalence of MH diagnosis in the South census re-
gion. Last, Rosero et al. reported an increase in the
prevalence in MH diagnosis between 2001 and 2005
. We do not confirm this trend over the longer
2003–2014 time period. The study by Rosero started
just 2 years after the introduction of the ICD-9-CM
code for MH in 1998 and the increase in this study
may merely be related to the novelty of the code.
The prognosis of MH crisis remains poor with a fatal-
ity rate of nearly 10% and MH-associated morbidity and
mortality increased when dantrolene administration is
delayed [6,7]. Similar poor prognosis is observed in
studies using administrative data. In these studies, dis-
charges recording a diagnosis of MH have a fatality rate
ranging from 12 to 22% [8,18]. In our study, we
Fig. 2 Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia diagnosis in obstetrics in the 47,178,322 delivery-related discharges of the 2003–2014 National
Inpatient Sample, overall and according to the delivery mode. The vertical bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 4 of 9
Table 1 Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia (MH) according to selected characteristics in the 47,178,322 delivery-related discharges of the 2003–2014 National Inpatient
with MH (N
Prevalence (per 100,000;
P-value Crude OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR
Age (year) 0.67
≤19 4,399,524 18 0.41 (0.24–0.65) 0.96 (0.58–1.58) 1.02 (0.62–1.67)
20–29 24,436,487 106 0.43 (0.36–0.52) Reference Reference
30–39 17,029,672 86 0.51 (0.40–0.62) 1.17 (0.88–1.56) 1.15 (0.86–1.54)
≥40 1,310,043 --
(0.33–2.11) 0.85 (0.33–2.16)
White, Non-Hispanic 20,333,243 102 0.50 (0.41–0.61) Reference Reference
Black 5,268,451 24 0.46 (0.29–0.68) 0.90 (0.58–1.40) 0.82 (0.52–1.29)
Hispanic 9,035,771 20 0.22 (0.14–0.34) 0.44 (0.27–0.71) 0.47 (0.29–0.76)
Other 4,166,949 15 0.36 (0.20–0.59) 0.70 (0.40–1.20) 0.78 (0.45–1.35)
Charlson comorbidity index 0.85
0 47,035,792 215 0.46 (0.40–0.52) ––
≥1 142,530 0 0.00 (0.00–2.59) ––
Comorbidity index for
0 or 1 41,467,932 188 0.45 (0.39–0.52) Reference Reference
≥2 5,707,789 27 0.47 (0.31–0.69) 1.06 (0.71–1.58) 0.79 (0.52–1.19)
Location and teaching status 0.023
Rural 5,270,124 37 0.70 (0.49–0.97) 1.63 (1.12–2.39) 1.34 (0.91–1.98)
Urban non-teaching 19,230,712 83 0.43 (0.34–0.54) 1.01 (0.75–1.36) 0.96 (0.71–1.30)
Urban teaching 22,458,351 96 0.43 (0.35–0.52) Reference Reference
Census region < 0.001
Northeast 7,678,323 20 0.26 (0.16–0.40) Reference Reference
Midwest 10,088,837 51 0.51 (0.38–0.66) 1.96 (1.17–3.29) 1.71 (0.99–2.93)
South 17,827,228 114 0.64 (0.53–0.77) 2.47 (1.54–3.98) 2.44 (1.50–3.96)
West 11,583,934 29 0.25 (0.17–0.36) 0.98 (0.55–
1.73) 1.11 (0.62–1.98)
Time period 0.17
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 5 of 9
Table 1 Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia (MH) according to selected characteristics in the 47,178,322 delivery-related discharges of the 2003–2014 National Inpatient
with MH (N
Prevalence (per 100,000;
P-value Crude OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR
2003–2006 16,163,993 86 0.53 (0.43–0.66) Reference Reference
2007–2010 16,049,577 69 0.43 (0.33–0.54) 0.81 (0.59–1.11) 0.81 (0.59–1.12)
2011–2014 14,964,752 59 0.39 (0.30–0.51) 0.75 (0.54–1.04) 0.77 (0.55–1.09)
Abbreviation: CI confidence interval, N
weighted number, OR odds ratio
Adjustment used all the variables listed in this table, along with the mode of delivery (vaginal or cesarean)
Because of HCUP data use agreement restrictions on small cell size, the number of observed cases and exact proportions are not presented
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 6 of 9
identified no death in discharges with a diagnosis of
MH. A possible explanation for this finding is the young
age of the patients analyzed and the lack of associated
comorbidity; 98% of MH discharges were under 40 and
only 0.3% had a Charlson comorbidity index greater
than 1. By contrast, Brady et al. reported a 22% fatality
rate in discharges with a diagnosis of MH but 49% of the
MH discharges were older than 45 and 46% had a Charl-
son comorbidity index greater than 1 .
The Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the
United States recommends that “dantrolene must be
available for all anesthetizing locations where MH
trigger agents are used.”This recommendation also
applies to facilities where volatile agents are not avail-
able or administered, and succinylcholine is only
stocked on site for emergency purposes . The cost
of an MH cart in maternity unit for responding to
MH crisis has been estimated at about $2000 per
year, including cost for the dantrolene itself, cost for
the cart and non-dantrolene items, and cost for MH
cart maintenance . Ho et al. have recently ques-
tioned this recommendation based on cost-benefit
analysis of stocking dantrolene in maternity units
utilization of general anesthesia and triggering agents
in obstetrics would not make stocking dantrolene pol-
icy cost-beneficial. Similar concerns have also been
raised in ambulatory surgery centers but two recent
studies support the dantrolene stocking policy in
these centers [3,23]. Of note, the prevalence of MH
susceptibility of 0.81 per 100,000 cesarean deliveries
(or 1 in 123,456 cases) reported in our study, similar
to the prevalence reported in non-obstetrical surgery
inpatients, suggests that stocking dantrolene in mater-
nity units is justified. In our opinion, the low annual
cost of a MH cart to treat a MH crisis in a maternity
unit ($2000 per year) and the prevention of maternal
death from a potentially treatable complication pro-
vide adequate justifications for stocking dantrolene in
maternity units. This is particularly relevant in the
current US context of implementing nationwide ini-
tiatives to reduce preventable severe maternal morbid-
ity and mortality .
It is worth noting the limitations with our study. First,
the NIS is a stratified sample of hospital discharges re-
cords and our study sample includes only 20% of child-
births during the study period. Second, identification of
MH diagnosis relies on the accuracy of coding in dis-
charges data and is susceptible to misclassification be-
cause of error or absence of coding. In a previous study
evaluating the accuracy of MH diagnosis in hospital dis-
charge records, we found that the ICD-9-CM code
995.86 (“Malignant hyperthermia due to anesthesia”)
corresponded to a MH crisis in 24% of the cases, to a
MH history in 47%, and to fever unrelated to MH in
24% . Therefore, most of the cases with an MH diag-
nosis identified in the present study should be regarded
as MH susceptibility rather than incident MH episodes.
Lack of information on anesthetics exposed or dantro-
lene administration in the NIS dataset precludes us from
identifying incident MH episodes. In other words, an
ICD-9-CM-based approach favors sensitivity over speci-
ficity. Clinical registries such as the North American
Malignant Hyperthermia Registry represent more spe-
cific approaches but also suffer from limitations such as
the voluntary declarations of MH crisis with a risk of
under declaration and underestimation of the prevalence
of MH crisis. However, these two approaches should not
be viewed as antagonistic but as complementary. Third,
our unit of analysis was the discharge record and not the
patient. So, a patient with multiple hospitalizations dur-
ing this 12-year study could be included more than once
in our analysis. However, the National Inpatient Sample
is a 20% sample of discharges records, which decreases
the likelihood of a patient being sampled and included
multiple times. To further assess the potential impact of
repeated admissions of MH-susceptible patients, we
checked individually linked hospital discharge records
for 2,851,697 obstetric patients in New York State from
2003 to 2014; of the discharges with a diagnosis of MH,
none involved repeated admissions. Fourth, this study
was limited to obstetric patients because of the recent
controversy surrounding dantrolene stocking policy in
maternity units. There are other settings where trigger-
ing agents may be used, especially succinylcholine, such
as emergency departments or intensive care units and
where stocking dantrolene could be suggested. To date,
no study has specifically examined the prevalence of MH
diagnosis in these locations. Fifth, a diagnosis of MH in
women who underwent vaginal delivery may appear sur-
prising because a general anesthetic with exposure to
MH triggering agents is not required for an uncompli-
cated vaginal delivery. However, a general anesthetic
may be required after a vaginal delivery in some circum-
stances such as the removal of a retained placenta or an
exploration of the uterine cavity because of a postpartum
hemorrhage. Moreover, as indicated in our previous
study, most of the MH diagnoses in hospital discharge
records refer to positive MH history and susceptibility
rather than acute MH episodes . These two factors
may explain why the prevalence of MH diagnosis in va-
ginal delivery was much lower than in cesarean delivery
(0.29 per 100,000 versus 0.81 per 100,000. Finally, the
NIS does not capture all childbirths occurring in the
country. For example, in 2014, the NIS included 3,828,
643 childbirths which corresponds to 96% of the 3,988,
076 births reported by the US National Center for
Health Statistics. The “missing”4% can be partially
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 7 of 9
explained by out-of-hospital births (births at home or in
a birth center), which accounted for 1.5% of live births
The prevalence of MH-susceptibility is about 1 in 125,
000 in cesarean deliveries, similar to the prevalence re-
ported in non-obstetrical surgery inpatients. Results of
this study suggest that stocking dantrolene in maternity
units is justified.
aOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval; HCUP: Healthcare Cost
and Utilization Project; ICD-9-CM: International Classification of Diseases,
Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification; MH: Malignant Hyperthermia;
MHAUS: Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States;
NIS: National Inpatient Sample; OR: Odds Ratio; US: United States
JG had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for
the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. He helped
design the study, conduct of the study, data collection, data analysis, and
manuscript preparation. GL helped design the study, conduct of the study,
interpretation of the results, and manuscript preparation. HR helped design
the study, conduct of the study, interpretation of the results, and manuscript
preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This research was supported in part by the Malignant Hyperthermia
Association of the United States, Sherburne, NY. The Malignant Hyperthermia
Association of the United States had no role in study design, data collection,
data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.
Jean Guglielminotti is supported by an R03 from the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (1 R03 HS025787–01). The Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality had no role in study design, data collection, data
analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) (https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.
gov/) but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used
under the HCUP data user agreement for the current study, and so are not
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocol was granted exemption under 45 Code of Federal
Regulation 46 (not human subjects research) by the Institutional Review
Board of Columbia University Medical Center. The Strengthening The
Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and the
Reporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected
health Data (RECORD) statements were followed [26,27].. Administrative per-
mission to access the data was granted by the Healthcare Cost and
Utilization Project (HCUP).
Consent for publication
Dr. Henry Rosenberg is the president of the Malignant Hyperthermia
Association of the United States. The content is solely the responsibility of
this author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the
Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States. The remaining
authors declare no competing interests.
Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University College of Physicians
and Surgeons, 622 West 168th Street, PH5-505, New York, NY 10032, USA.
the Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States, Sherburne, NY
Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman
School of Public Health, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Received: 12 February 2019 Accepted: 9 January 2020
1. Litman RS, Griggs SM, Dowling JJ, Riazi S. Malignant hyperthermia
susceptibility and related diseases. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:159–67.
2. Rosenberg H, Pollock N, Schiemann A, Bulger T, Stowell K. Malignant
hyperthermia: a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:93.
3. Larach MG, Klumpner TT, Brandom BW, Vaughn MT, Belani KG, Herlich A,
et al. Succinylcholine use and dantrolene availability for malignant
hyperthermia treatment: database analyses and systematic review.
4. Riazi S, Larach MG, Hu C, Wijeysundera D, Massey C, Kraeva N.
Malignant hyperthermia in Canada: characteristics of index anesthetics
in 129 malignant hyperthermia susceptible probands. Anesth Analg.
5. Riazi S, Kraeva N, Hopkins PM. Malignant hyperthermia in the post-
genomics era: new perspectives on an old concept. Anesthesiology. 2018;
6. Larach MG, Brandom BW, Allen GC, Gronert GA, Lehman EB. Malignant
hyperthermia deaths related to inadequate temperature monitoring, 2007-
2012: a report from the north American malignant hyperthermia registry of
the malignant hyperthermia association of the United States. Anesth Analg.
7. Shafer SL, Dexter F, Brull SJ. Deadly heat: economics of continuous
temperature monitoring during general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2014;119:
8. Brady JE, Sun LS, Rosenberg H, Li G. Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia
due to anesthesia in New York state, 2001-2005. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:
9. Lu Z, Rosenberg H, Brady JE, Li G. Prevalence of malignant hyperthermia
diagnosis in New York state ambulatory surgery center discharge records
2002 to 2011. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:449–53.
10. Ho PT, Carvalho B, Sun EC, Macario A, Riley ET. Cost-benefit analysis of
maintaining a fully stocked malignant hyperthermia cart versus an initial
dantrolene treatment dose for maternity units. Anesthesiology. 2018;129:
11. Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States. Frequently asked
questions: Who should stock dantrolene ? Available at: https://www.mhaus.
org/faqs/. Last accessed: November 7, 2018.
12. Wong CA. Dantrolene and malignant hyperthermia carts: do we need them
on maternity units? Anesthesiology. 2018;129:225–7.
13. Kuklina EV, Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, Meikle SF, Posner SF, et al.
An enhanced method for identifying obstetric deliveries: implications for
estimating maternal morbidity. Matern Child Health J. 2008;12:469–77.
14. Bateman BT, Mhyre JM, Hernandez-Diaz S, Huybrechts KF, Fischer MA,
Creanga AA, et al. Development of a comorbidity index for use in obstetric
patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:957–65.
15. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding
algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10
administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–9.
16. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and
validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in
hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol.
17. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Producing national HCUP estimates.
Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/nationalestimates/5
08_course/508course_2018.jsp. Last accessed: November 22, 2019.
18. Rosero EB, Adesanya AO, Timaran CH, Joshi GP. Trends and outcomes of
malignant hyperthermia in the United States, 2000 to 2005. Anesthesiology.
19. Li G, Brady JE, Rosenberg H, Sun LS. Excess comorbidities associated with
malignant hyperthermia diagnosis in pediatric hospital discharge records.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21:958–63.
20. Butwick AJ, Blumenfeld YJ, Brookfield KF, Nelson LM, Weiniger CF. Racial
and ethnic disparities in mode of anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 8 of 9
21. Guglielminotti J, Landau R, Li G. Adverse events and factors associated with
potentially avoidable use of general anesthesia in cesarean deliveries.
22. Bachand M, Vachon N, Boisvert M, Mayer FM, Chartrand D. Clinical
reassessment of malignant hyperthermia in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Can J
23. Aderibigbe T, Lang BH, Rosenberg H, Chen Q, Li G. Cost-effectiveness
analysis of stocking dantrolene in ambulatory surgery centers for the
treatment of malignant hyperthermia. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:1333–8.
24. D'Alton ME, Main EK, Menard MK, Levy BS. The National Partnership for
maternal safety. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:973–7.
25. Pinyavat T, Rosenberg H, Lang BH, Wong CA, Riazi S, Brady JE, et al.
Accuracy of malignant hyperthermia diagnoses in hospital discharge
records. Anesthesiology. 2015;122:55–63.
26. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al.
The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected
health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001885.
27. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke
JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in
epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational
studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–7.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Guglielminotti et al. BMC Anesthesiology (2020) 20:19 Page 9 of 9
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at