Suppr超能文献

脑刺激治疗强迫症(OCD):系统综述。

Brain Stimulation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Neurosciences, Mental Health, and Sensory Organs (NESMOS) Department, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University; "Sant'Andrea" University Hospital, Rome, Italy.

Department of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University; Risk Management Unit, "Sant'Andrea" University Hospital, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Curr Neuropharmacol. 2019;17(8):787-807. doi: 10.2174/1570159X17666190409142555.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a highly prevalent, severe, and chronic disease. There is a need for alternative strategies for treatment-resistant OCD.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to assess the effect of brain stimulation techniques in OCD.

METHODS

We included papers published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with brain stimulation techniques in OCD. We conducted treatment-specific searches for OCD (Technique AND ((randomized OR randomised) AND control* AND trial) AND (magnetic AND stimulation OR (rTMS OR dTMS)) AND (obsess* OR compuls* OR OCD)) on six databases, i.e., PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify randomised controlled trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for possible additional results.

RESULTS

Different add-on stimulation techniques could be effective for severely ill OCD patients unresponsive to drugs and/or behavioural therapy. Most evidence regarded deep brain stimulation (DBS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), while there is less evidence regarding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), electroconvulsive therapy, and vagus nerve stimulation (for these last two there are no sham-controlled studies). Low-frequency TMS may be more effective over the supplementary motor area or the orbitofrontal cortex. DBS showed best results when targeting the crossroad between the nucleus accumbens and the ventral capsule or the subthalamic nucleus. Cathodal tDCS may be better than anodal in treating OCD. Limitations. We had to include methodologically inconsistent underpowered studies.

CONCLUSION

Different brain stimulation techniques are promising as an add-on treatment of refractory OCD, although studies frequently reported inconsistent results. TMS, DBS, and tDCS could possibly find some use with adequate testing, but their standard methodology still needs to be established.

摘要

背景

强迫症(OCD)是一种高发、严重且慢性的疾病。对于治疗抵抗的 OCD,需要有替代的治疗策略。

目的

本综述旨在评估脑刺激技术在 OCD 中的疗效。

方法

我们纳入了在同行评审期刊上发表的涉及 OCD 脑刺激技术的论文。我们针对 OCD 进行了特定的治疗搜索(技术 AND ((随机或随机化) AND 对照* AND 试验) AND (磁 AND 刺激 OR (rTMS 或 dTMS)) AND (强迫观念或强迫行为或 OCD)),在六个数据库(PubMed、Cochrane、Scopus、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science)中检索随机对照试验,以及 ClinicalTrials.gov 以确定可能的额外结果。

结果

对于药物和/或行为治疗反应不佳的重度 OCD 患者,不同的附加刺激技术可能有效。大多数证据涉及深部脑刺激(DBS)和经颅磁刺激(TMS),而经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)、电惊厥治疗和迷走神经刺激的证据较少(对于后两者,没有假刺激对照研究)。低频 TMS 可能在辅助运动区或眶额皮层更有效。当以伏隔核和腹侧壳核或丘脑底核的交叉点为靶点时,DBS 显示出最佳效果。阴极 tDCS 可能比阳极 tDCS 更有利于治疗 OCD。局限性。我们不得不纳入方法学不一致、功率不足的研究。

结论

不同的脑刺激技术作为难治性 OCD 的附加治疗方法具有很大的潜力,尽管研究经常报告不一致的结果。TMS、DBS 和 tDCS 可能在经过充分测试后会有一定的应用,但它们的标准方法仍需建立。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a286/7059162/716724237764/CN-17-787_F1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验