BACKGROUND: We have investigated the efficacy of high-frequency left (HFL) versus low-frequency right (LFR) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in depression, focusing on specific symptoms as possible predictors of outcome for these two different types of stimulation. METHOD: Seventy-four outpatients with a major depressive episode treated with an adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 4 weeks were included in our study and randomly assigned to two different groups: HFL or LFR rTMS. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) items were pooled into 6 factors to evaluate specific symptoms as possible predictors of response. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 32 patients (65.6%) and 24 out of 42 patients (57.1%) were responders in the HFL and LFR groups, respectively. No significant difference in response rate was observed. Considering the whole sample, we found an inverse correlation between activity and HAM-D score reduction and a significant positive relation between somatic anxiety and outcome. An inverse correlation between psychic anxiety and HAM-D score reduction emerged considering the HFL group. In the LFR group, there was a significant negative relationship between baseline activity and the outcome. CONCLUSION: These findings support the hypothesis that LFR rTMS could be as effective as HFL rTMS and more suitable for patients with a higher anxiety degree, particularly in bipolar patients. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We have investigated the efficacy of high-frequency left (HFL) versus low-frequency right (LFR) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in depression, focusing on specific symptoms as possible predictors of outcome for these two different types of stimulation. METHOD: Seventy-four outpatients with a major depressive episode treated with an adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 4 weeks were included in our study and randomly assigned to two different groups: HFL or LFR rTMS. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) items were pooled into 6 factors to evaluate specific symptoms as possible predictors of response. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 32 patients (65.6%) and 24 out of 42 patients (57.1%) were responders in the HFL and LFR groups, respectively. No significant difference in response rate was observed. Considering the whole sample, we found an inverse correlation between activity and HAM-D score reduction and a significant positive relation between somatic anxiety and outcome. An inverse correlation between psychic anxiety and HAM-D score reduction emerged considering the HFL group. In the LFR group, there was a significant negative relationship between baseline activity and the outcome. CONCLUSION: These findings support the hypothesis that LFR rTMS could be as effective as HFL rTMS and more suitable for patients with a higher anxiety degree, particularly in bipolarpatients. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Laura E Leggett; Lesley J J Soril; Stephanie Coward; Diane L Lorenzetti; Gail MacKean; Fiona M Clement Journal: Prim Care Companion CNS Disord Date: 2015-11-05
Authors: Peter J Fried; Richard J Rushmore; Mark B Moss; Antoni Valero-Cabré; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Alisson Paulino Trevizol; Kyle W Goldberger; Benoit H Mulsant; Tarek K Rajji; Jonathan Downar; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Daniel M Blumberger; Jerome J Maller; Lauren Thomson; Benoit H Mulsant; Tarek K Rajji; Missy Maher; Patrick E Brown; Jonathan Downar; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Paul B Fitzgerald; Zafiris J Daskalakis Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Chiara Mastropasqua; Marco Bozzali; Viviana Ponzo; Giovanni Giulietti; Carlo Caltagirone; Mara Cercignani; Giacomo Koch Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Maria Concetta Pellicciari; Susanna Cordone; Cristina Marzano; Stefano Bignotti; Anna Gazzoli; Carlo Miniussi; Luigi De Gennaro Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.169