Shin Hye-Sang, Thomas Naveen, Gong Yiting Amanda, Krishnadas Rajeev, Elias Alby
Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
BJPsych Open. 2025 Jun 25;11(4):e126. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2025.10053.
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT.
To investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes.
Using a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log-linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis.
In total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group ( = 200.53; < 0.0001; odds ratio: 2.6673, 95% CI: 2.3244-3.0608). This association remained significant after adjustment for gender, age, level of education and diagnosis.
Significantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of ECT.
电休克治疗(ECT)常用于治疗那些无法对该治疗给予知情同意的个体的严重精神障碍。对于在知情同意和非知情同意的ECT中如何使用不同类型的电极放置,我们知之甚少。
鉴于ECT电极放置会影响疗效和认知结果,研究ECT的知情同意状态与电极放置之间是否存在关联。
利用澳大利亚维多利亚州一个为期3年的全州数据库,我们进行了卡方检验,以确定知情同意状态(知情同意与非知情同意)是否与特定的电极放置相关。然后进行了三向对数线性分析,以检查年龄、性别、教育程度和精神科诊断是否影响知情同意状态与电极放置之间的关系。鉴于右侧单侧和双额叶ECT具有可比的认知结果,在分析中将这些电极放置方式合并。
在研究期间,共有3882名参与者在维多利亚州公共卫生服务机构接受了ECT治疗。在非知情同意的ECT组中,1576名个体中有722名(45.81%)接受了双颞叶ECT,而在知情同意组的2306名个体中有555名(24.06%)接受了双颞叶ECT(χ² = 200.53;P < 0.0001;优势比:2.6673,95%置信区间:2.3244 - 3.0608)。在对性别、年龄、教育程度和诊断进行调整后,这种关联仍然显著。
与知情同意组相比,非知情同意的ECT组中接受双颞叶ECT而非右侧单侧或双额叶ECT的参与者明显更多。由于双颞叶ECT与更多的认知损害相关,在缺乏同意能力的脆弱患者中选择这种电极放置方式在ECT实践中引发了伦理考量。