BACKGROUND: Recent trials have demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy and minimal cognitive side effects with ultrabrief pulsewidth right unilateral (RUL) ECT. In many countries it is gradually being adopted into clinical practice and further information on predictors of response is needed. METHODS: Data collected from 75 depressed patients who received ultrabrief RUL ECT in a prospective research trial were analysed for predictors of response. Mood improvement was assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Improvement in unipolar versus bipolar depression was analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of patients met the criteria for response and 36% met the criteria for remission. Logistic regression identified index episode duration ≥one year (OR=10.50, p=.006), fewer failed antidepressant treatments (OR=0.46, p=.003), previous ECT course (OR=7.33, p=.01), and absence of concurrent antidepressant (OR=0.09, p=.005) as predictors of response. Psychotic features (OR=7.18, p=.032) and baseline depression severity (OR=0.90, p=.017) were predictors of remission. There was a trend towards greater improvement in bipolar than unipolar depression in the first week of treatment (p=0.077). LIMITATIONS: Data were obtained from a prospective but non-randomised clinical trial which was designed to evaluate efficacy rather than to examine predictors of response. Treatment decisions (concurrent medication, switching to other types of ECT) were made on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that predictors of response for ultrabrief RUL ECT are similar to those identified for other types of ECT previously studied.
BACKGROUND: Recent trials have demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy and minimal cognitive side effects with ultrabrief pulsewidth right unilateral (RUL) ECT. In many countries it is gradually being adopted into clinical practice and further information on predictors of response is needed. METHODS: Data collected from 75 depressedpatients who received ultrabrief RUL ECT in a prospective research trial were analysed for predictors of response. Mood improvement was assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Improvement in unipolar versus bipolar depression was analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of patients met the criteria for response and 36% met the criteria for remission. Logistic regression identified index episode duration ≥one year (OR=10.50, p=.006), fewer failed antidepressant treatments (OR=0.46, p=.003), previous ECT course (OR=7.33, p=.01), and absence of concurrent antidepressant (OR=0.09, p=.005) as predictors of response. Psychotic features (OR=7.18, p=.032) and baseline depression severity (OR=0.90, p=.017) were predictors of remission. There was a trend towards greater improvement in bipolar than unipolar depression in the first week of treatment (p=0.077). LIMITATIONS: Data were obtained from a prospective but non-randomised clinical trial which was designed to evaluate efficacy rather than to examine predictors of response. Treatment decisions (concurrent medication, switching to other types of ECT) were made on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that predictors of response for ultrabrief RUL ECT are similar to those identified for other types of ECT previously studied.
Authors: Takahiro Soda; Declan M McLoughlin; Scott R Clark; Leif Oltedal; Ute Kessler; Jan Haavik; Chad Bousman; Daniel J Smith; Miquel Bioque; Caitlin C Clements; Colleen Loo; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Alessandra Minelli; Brian J Mickey; Roumen Milev; Anna R Docherty; Julie Langan Martin; Eric D Achtyes; Volker Arolt; Ronny Redlich; Udo Dannlowski; Narcis Cardoner; Emily Clare; Nick Craddock; Arianna Di Florio; Monika Dmitrzak-Weglarz; Liz Forty; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Mustafa Husain; Wendy M Ingram; Lisa Jones; Ian Jones; Mario Juruena; George Kirov; Mikael Landén; Daniel J Müller; Axel Nordensköld; Erik Pålsson; Meethu Paul; Agnieszka Permoda; Bartlomiej Pliszka; Jamie Rea; Klaus O Schubert; Joshua A Sonnen; Virginia Soria; Will Stageman; Akihiro Takamiya; Mikel Urretavizacaya; Stuart Watson; Maxim Zavorotny; Allan H Young; Eduard Vieta; Janusz K Rybakowski; Massimo Gennarelli; Peter P Zandi; Patrick F Sullivan; Bernhard T Baune Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: S D Østergaard; B S Meyers; A J Flint; B H Mulsant; E M Whyte; C M Ulbricht; P Bech; A J Rothschild Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Sarah A Goegan; Gary M Hasey; Jelena P King; Bruno J Losier; Peter J Bieling; Margaret C McKinnon; Heather E McNeely Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 5.321
Authors: Søren D Østergaard; Barnett S Meyers; Alastair J Flint; Benoit H Mulsant; Ellen M Whyte; Christine M Ulbricht; Per Bech; Anthony J Rothschild Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: J A van Waarde; H S Scholte; L J B van Oudheusden; B Verwey; D Denys; G A van Wingen Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 15.992