OBJECTIVES: Using standard self-evaluation questionnaires, numerous studies have found that subjective memory improves shortly after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This change covaries strongly with depression severity and is not associated with objective amnestic effects or treatment parameters. We examined subjective evaluations of ECT's cognitive effects using a novel interview that directly inquired about global impact, in contrast to the standard method of inquiring about specific aspects of cognition. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-masked trial comparing the effects of pulse width (0.3 vs 1.5 milliseconds) and electrode placement (right unilateral vs bilateral) on cognitive outcomes. Subjective evaluations were obtained before and during the week after the randomized ECT course, using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, the Squire Memory Complaint Questionnaire, and the novel Global Self-Evaluation of Memory. An extensive neuropsychological battery was administered at these time points. RESULTS:Cognitive Failures Questionnaire and Squire Memory Complaint Questionnaire scores improved at post-ECT relative to pre-ECT, strongly covaried with depression severity (24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores) but not with objective amnestic deficits or treatment parameters. In contrast, the treatment conditions differed in post-ECT Global Self-Evaluation of Memory scores, and these scores were associated with objective amnestic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to standard methods, direct questioning about global impact resulted in more negative views about ECT's cognitive effects, concordance with objective cognitive measures, and differences among treatment conditions. Patients may be more accurate in their assessment of ECT's adverse effects than had previously been suggested.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Using standard self-evaluation questionnaires, numerous studies have found that subjective memory improves shortly after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This change covaries strongly with depression severity and is not associated with objective amnestic effects or treatment parameters. We examined subjective evaluations of ECT's cognitive effects using a novel interview that directly inquired about global impact, in contrast to the standard method of inquiring about specific aspects of cognition. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-masked trial comparing the effects of pulse width (0.3 vs 1.5 milliseconds) and electrode placement (right unilateral vs bilateral) on cognitive outcomes. Subjective evaluations were obtained before and during the week after the randomized ECT course, using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, the Squire Memory Complaint Questionnaire, and the novel Global Self-Evaluation of Memory. An extensive neuropsychological battery was administered at these time points. RESULTS: Cognitive Failures Questionnaire and Squire Memory Complaint Questionnaire scores improved at post-ECT relative to pre-ECT, strongly covaried with depression severity (24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores) but not with objective amnestic deficits or treatment parameters. In contrast, the treatment conditions differed in post-ECT Global Self-Evaluation of Memory scores, and these scores were associated with objective amnestic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to standard methods, direct questioning about global impact resulted in more negative views about ECT's cognitive effects, concordance with objective cognitive measures, and differences among treatment conditions. Patients may be more accurate in their assessment of ECT's adverse effects than had previously been suggested.
Authors: Harold A Sackeim; Joan Prudic; D P Devanand; Mitchell S Nobler; Roger F Haskett; Benoit H Mulsant; Peter B Rosenquist; William V McCall Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Gregory L Sahlem; William V McCall; E Baron Short; Peter B Rosenquist; James B Fox; Nagy A Youssef; Andrew J Manett; Suzanne E Kerns; Morgan M Dancy; Laryssa McCloud; Mark S George; Harold A Sackeim Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Liam Trevithick; R Hamish McAllister-Williams; Andrew Blamire; Tim Branton; Ross Clark; Darragh Downey; Graham Dunn; Andrew Easton; Rebecca Elliott; Clare Ellwell; Katherine Hayden; Fiona Holland; Salman Karim; Jo Lowe; Colleen Loo; Rajesh Nair; Timothy Oakley; Antony Prakash; Parveen K Sharma; Stephen R Williams; Ian M Anderson Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Gordon Fernie; James Currie; Jennifer S Perrin; Caroline A Stewart; Virginica Anderson; Daniel M Bennett; Steven Hay; Ian C Reid Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Richard J Porter; Bernhard T Baune; Grace Morris; Amber Hamilton; Darryl Bassett; Philip Boyce; Malcolm J Hopwood; Roger Mulder; Gordon Parker; Ajeet B Singh; Tim Outhred; Pritha Das; Gin S Malhi Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2020-04-17
Authors: Robert Sigström; Axel Nordenskjöld; Anders Juréus; Caitlin Clements; Erik Joas; Erik Pålsson; Mikael Landén Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2020-03-09