Department of Psychiatry, Chinese University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong SAR, China.
Schizophr Bull. 2010 Mar;36(2):231-8. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbp105. Epub 2009 Sep 23.
To provide a rational basis for reconceptualizing catatonia in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition), we briefly review historical sources, the psychopathology of catatonia, and the relevance of catatonic schizophrenia in contemporary practice and research. In contrast to Kahlbaum, Kraepelin and others (Jaspers, Kleist, and Schneider) recognized the prevalence of motor symptoms in diverse psychiatric disorders but concluded that the unique pattern and persistence of certain psychomotor phenomena defined a "catatonic" subtype of schizophrenia, based on intensive long-term studies. The enduring controversy and confusion that ensued underscores the fact that the main problem with catatonia is not just its place in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but rather its lack of conceptual clarity. There still are no accepted principles on what makes a symptom catatonic and no consensus on which signs and symptoms constitute a catatonic syndrome. The resulting heterogeneity is reflected in treatment studies that show that stuporous catatonia in any acute disorder responds to benzodiazepines or electroconvulsive therapy, whereas catatonia in the context of chronic schizophrenia is phenomenologically different and less responsive to either modality. Although psychomotor phenomena are an intrinsic feature of acute and especially chronic schizophrenia, they are insufficiently recognized in practice and research but may have significant implications for treatment outcome and neurobiological studies. While devising a separate category of catatonia as a nonspecific syndrome has heuristic value, it may be equally if not more important to re-examine the psychopathological basis for defining psychomotor symptoms as catatonic and to re-establish psychomotor phenomena as a fundamental symptom dimension or criterion for both psychotic and mood disorders.
为了在《精神障碍诊断与统计手册(第五版)》中为重新概念化紧张症提供合理的依据,我们简要回顾了紧张症的历史渊源、精神病理学以及在当代实践和研究中紧张型精神分裂症的相关性。与 Kahlbaum、Kraepelin 等人(Jaspers、Kleist 和 Schneider)不同,他们认识到运动症状在各种精神障碍中的普遍存在,但得出结论认为,某些精神运动现象的独特模式和持续存在定义了一种“紧张型”精神分裂症亚型,这是基于深入的长期研究。随之而来的持久争议和困惑突显了一个事实,即紧张症的主要问题不仅在于它在《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》中的位置,还在于其概念上的不清晰。目前还没有关于什么使一个症状成为紧张症的公认原则,也没有关于哪些体征和症状构成紧张症综合征的共识。由此产生的异质性反映在治疗研究中,这些研究表明,任何急性障碍中的昏迷性紧张症都对苯二氮䓬类药物或电惊厥治疗有反应,而慢性精神分裂症中的紧张症在表型上有所不同,对这两种方式的反应都较差。尽管精神运动现象是急性和特别是慢性精神分裂症的固有特征,但在实践和研究中没有得到充分的认识,但它们可能对治疗结果和神经生物学研究有重要意义。虽然设计一个单独的紧张症类别作为一种非特异性综合征具有启发价值,但重新检查将精神运动症状定义为紧张症的精神病理学基础,并将精神运动现象重新确立为精神和心境障碍的基本症状维度或标准,可能同样重要,如果不是更重要的话。