OBJECTIVE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective depression treatment, but it has potential cognitive side effects. Ultrabrief pulse (UBP) right unilateral (RUL) ECT is an increasingly used treatment option that can potentially combine efficacy with lesser cognitive side effects. However, current trials are underpowered or have conflicting results. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy and cognitive effects of brief pulse (BP) and UBP RUL ECT. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, DARE, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched with the search terms ECT, electroconvulsive therapy, electroconvulsive shock, electroconvulsive shock therapy, electrical stimulation, electroconvulsive combined with brief, ultra*, pulse, and trial in English, all fields including title, abstract, subject heading, and full text up to June 20, 2013, for studies comparing BP and UBP RUL ECT in depressed patients that reported formalized mood ratings for depression. STUDY SELECTION: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 689 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Efficacy, cognitive, response, and remission outcomes were extracted from each publication or obtained directly from authors. RESULTS: BP RUL ECT was significantly more efficacious in treating depression than UBP RUL ECT (standardized mean difference = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08–0.41; P = .004) but showed significantly more cognitive side effects in all cognitive domains examined (global cognition, anterograde learning and recall, retrograde memory) (P < .01). The mean number of treatment sessions given was 8.7 for BP ECT and 9.6 for UBP ECT (P < .001). UBP had a lower remission rate (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.99; P = .045), with a number needed to treat of 12.1. CONCLUSIONS: BP compared with UBP RUL ECT was slightly more efficacious in treating depression and required fewer treatment sessions, but led to greater cognitive side effects. The decision of whether to use BP or UBP RUL ECT should be made on an individual patient basis and should be based on a careful weighing of the relative priorities of efficacy versus minimization of cognitive impairment.
OBJECTIVE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective depression treatment, but it has potential cognitive side effects. Ultrabrief pulse (UBP) right unilateral (RUL) ECT is an increasingly used treatment option that can potentially combine efficacy with lesser cognitive side effects. However, current trials are underpowered or have conflicting results. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy and cognitive effects of brief pulse (BP) and UBP RUL ECT. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, DARE, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched with the search terms ECT, electroconvulsive therapy, electroconvulsive shock, electroconvulsive shock therapy, electrical stimulation, electroconvulsive combined with brief, ultra*, pulse, and trial in English, all fields including title, abstract, subject heading, and full text up to June 20, 2013, for studies comparing BP and UBP RUL ECT in depressedpatients that reported formalized mood ratings for depression. STUDY SELECTION: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 689 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Efficacy, cognitive, response, and remission outcomes were extracted from each publication or obtained directly from authors. RESULTS:BP RUL ECT was significantly more efficacious in treating depression than UBP RUL ECT (standardized mean difference = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08–0.41; P = .004) but showed significantly more cognitive side effects in all cognitive domains examined (global cognition, anterograde learning and recall, retrograde memory) (P < .01). The mean number of treatment sessions given was 8.7 for BP ECT and 9.6 for UBP ECT (P < .001). UBP had a lower remission rate (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.99; P = .045), with a number needed to treat of 12.1. CONCLUSIONS:BP compared with UBP RUL ECT was slightly more efficacious in treating depression and required fewer treatment sessions, but led to greater cognitive side effects. The decision of whether to use BP or UBP RUL ECT should be made on an individual patient basis and should be based on a careful weighing of the relative priorities of efficacy versus minimization of cognitive impairment.
Authors: Charles H Kellner; Mustafa M Husain; Rebecca G Knapp; W Vaughn McCall; Georgios Petrides; Matthew V Rudorfer; Robert C Young; Shirlene Sampson; Shawn M McClintock; Martina Mueller; Joan Prudic; Robert M Greenberg; Richard D Weiner; Samuel H Bailine; Peter B Rosenquist; Ahmad Raza; Styliani Kaliora; Vassilios Latoussakis; Kristen G Tobias; Mimi C Briggs; Lauren S Liebman; Emma T Geduldig; Abeba A Teklehaimanot; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Roumen V Milev; Peter Giacobbe; Sidney H Kennedy; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Jonathan Downar; Mandana Modirrousta; Simon Patry; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Raymond W Lam; Glenda M MacQueen; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
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: 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: Marom Bikson; Pnina Grossman; Chris Thomas; Adantchede Louis Zannou; Jimmy Jiang; Tatheer Adnan; Antonios P Mourdoukoutas; Greg Kronberg; Dennis Truong; Paulo Boggio; André R Brunoni; Leigh Charvet; Felipe Fregni; Brita Fritsch; Bernadette Gillick; Roy H Hamilton; Benjamin M Hampstead; Ryan Jankord; Adam Kirton; Helena Knotkova; David Liebetanz; Anli Liu; Colleen Loo; Michael A Nitsche; Janine Reis; Jessica D Richardson; Alexander Rotenberg; Peter E Turkeltaub; Adam J Woods Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 8.955