Suppr超能文献

超短程双额叶与单侧电休克治疗重度抑郁症的随机对照研究:临床疗效

Randomized comparison of ultra-brief bifrontal and unilateral electroconvulsive therapy for major depression: clinical efficacy.

作者信息

Sienaert P, Vansteelandt K, Demyttenaere K, Peuskens J

机构信息

ECT Department, University Psychiatric Center-Catholic University of Leuven, campus Kortenberg, Kortenberg, Belgium.

出版信息

J Affect Disord. 2009 Jul;116(1-2):106-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.11.001. Epub 2008 Dec 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) with an ultra-brief pulse width in combination with a bilateral electrode placement has diminished antidepressive efficacy, as compared to unilateral ultra-brief pulse ECT.

OBJECTIVE

The antidepressive efficacy of bifrontal and right unilateral ultra-brief pulse (0.3 ms) ECT were compared.

METHOD

Eighty-one patients with a medication refractory depressive episode were treated with a course of bifrontal ultra-brief pulse ECT at 1.5 times seizure threshold or unilateral ultra-brief pulse ECT at 6 times seizure threshold by random assignment. The 17 item-Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), Beck Depression Inventory, Clinical Global Impression and Patient Global Impression were administered at baseline and repeated weekly during and 1 and 6 weeks after the course, by a blinded rater.

RESULTS

64/81 patients (79%) completed the study, half of which were treated with bifrontal ECT. At the end of the course, 78.1% of the BF group and 78.1% of the UL group responded, whereas, 34.38% (N=11) of the BF group and 43.75% (N=14) of the UL group achieved strict remission criteria (HRSD-score < or = 7). There were no significant differences between the patients given bifrontal ECT and those given unilateral ECT, although patients receiving unilateral ECT achieved response/remission-criteria after a smaller number of treatments.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small number of subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an ultra-brief pulse width, both BF and UL-ECT are efficacious, although patients receiving UL-ECT achieve response/remission-criteria after a smaller number of treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRY

http://www.controlled-trials.com/

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN56570426.

摘要

背景

有人提出,与单侧超短脉冲宽度的电休克治疗(ECT)相比,超短脉冲宽度联合双侧电极放置的ECT抗抑郁疗效有所降低。

目的

比较双额叶和右侧单侧超短脉冲(0.3毫秒)ECT的抗抑郁疗效。

方法

81例药物难治性抑郁发作患者被随机分配,接受1.5倍癫痫阈值的双额叶超短脉冲ECT疗程或6倍癫痫阈值的单侧超短脉冲ECT疗程。由一名盲法评估者在基线时以及在疗程期间和疗程后1周及6周每周重复使用17项汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HRSD)、贝克抑郁量表、临床总体印象和患者总体印象进行评估。

结果

64/81例患者(79%)完成了研究,其中一半接受双额叶ECT治疗。在疗程结束时,双额叶组和单侧组分别有78.1%的患者有反应,而双额叶组34.38%(N = 11)和单侧组43.75%(N = 14)达到严格缓解标准(HRSD评分≤7)。接受双额叶ECT的患者和接受单侧ECT的患者之间没有显著差异,尽管接受单侧ECT的患者在较少次数的治疗后达到反应/缓解标准。

局限性

受试者数量相对较少。

结论

使用超短脉冲宽度时,双额叶ECT和单侧ECT均有效,尽管接受单侧ECT的患者在较少次数的治疗后达到反应/缓解标准。

试验注册

http://www.controlled-trials.com/

注册号

ISRCTN56570426

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验