pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A randomized controlled trial of brief and ultrabrief pulse right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy - PubMed

  • ️Wed Jan 01 2014

Randomized Controlled Trial

. 2014 Dec 5;18(1):pyu045.

doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyu045.

Affiliations

Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized controlled trial of brief and ultrabrief pulse right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy

Colleen K Loo et al. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014.

Erratum in

  • Erratum.

    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016 Apr 27;19(10):pyw031. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyw031. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016. PMID: 27207904 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Some studies suggest better overall outcomes when right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy (RUL ECT) is given with an ultrabrief, rather than brief, pulse width.

Methods: The aim of the study was to test if ultrabrief-pulse RUL ECT results in less cognitive side effects than brief- pulse RUL ECT, when given at doses which achieve comparable efficacy. One hundred and two participants were assigned to receive ultrabrief (at 8 times seizure threshold) or brief (at 5 times seizure threshold) pulse RUL ECT in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Blinded raters assessed mood and cognitive functioning over the ECT course.

Results: Efficacy outcomes were not found to be significantly different. The ultrabrief group showed less cognitive impairment immediately after a single session of ECT, and over the treatment course (autobiographical memory, orientation).

Conclusions: In summary, when ultrabrief RUL ECT was given at a higher dosage than brief RUL ECT (8 versus 5 times seizure threshold), efficacy was comparable while cognitive impairment was less.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00870805.

Keywords: cognitive; depression; electroconvulsive therapy; pulse width; randomized controlled trial.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

CONSORT diagram.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

(A) Mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at baseline, week 1, week 2, and after the final ECT, adjusted for covariates; (B) Mean MADRS scores at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 month follow-ups, adjusted for covariates.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aickin M, Gensler H. (1996). Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. Am J Public Health 86:726–728. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J. (1998). Hopkins Verbal Learning Test revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychol 12: 43–55.
    1. Dubovsky S, Buzan R, THomas M, Kassner C, Cullum C. (2004). Nicardipine improves the antidepressant action of ECT but does not improve cognition. J ECT 17:3–10. - PubMed
    1. Enders CK. (2011). Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses. Psychol Methods 16:1–16. - PubMed
    1. Fekadu A, Wooderson SC, Markopoulou K, Cleare AJ. (2009). The Maudsley Staging Method for treatment-resistant depression: prediction of longer-term outcome and persistence of symptoms. J Clin Psychiatry 70:952–957. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources