ArticleCureus2026
Unraveling the Enigma of Postablation Rhabdomyolysis: Diagnostic Dilemmas and Therapeutic Strategies.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rhabdomyolysis is characterized by the breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue and the release of intracellular contents into the circulation, and it poses diagnostic challenges due to its heterogeneous presentation and potential for serious complications. We present a case of a 44-year-old male with a history of hypertension, anxiety, and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who developed rhabdomyolysis the morning after a scheduled catheter ablation. He presented with myalgias, muscle cramps, weakness, and brown-colored urine; laboratory studies revealed a creatine phosphokinase (CPK) of 23,757 U/L, hyponatremia, and mildly elevated transaminases despite a normal urinalysis. His CPK improved to below 5,000 U/L after 72 h of intravenous fluid resuscitation, and he was discharged following electrolyte correction. Differential diagnoses considered included propofol infusion syndrome, position-related (pressure-induced) rhabdomyolysis, metabolic myopathy, and malignant hyperthermia (MH), with MH emerging as the most probable etiology given his exposure to succinylcholine and the close temporal relationship between anesthesia and symptom onset. Definitive confirmation was limited by the patient's decision to decline muscle biopsy and genetic testing. Outpatient electromyography did not show a myopathic process, and the patient later tolerated a cardioversion performed under a non-triggering anesthetic protocol without recurrence. This case underscores the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for subclinical or atypical MH and anesthesia-induced rhabdomyolysis (AIR) in patients without a prior history of anesthetic complications, and it highlights the diagnostic complexity that arises when confirmatory testing is unavailable or declined. Further research into the mechanisms underlying subclinical MH, along with standardized diagnostic and monitoring protocols for perioperative rhabdomyolysis, is warranted to optimize patient care in similar scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.