Chiara Socci1, Pierpaolo Medda2, Cristina Toni3, Lorenzo Lattanzi1, Beniamino Tripodi1, Giulia Vannucchi1, Giulio Perugi4. 1. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy. 2. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy. Electronic address: pmedda@med.unipi.it. 3. Institute of Behavioral Science "G. De Lisio", Carrara-Pisa, Italy. 4. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy; Institute of Behavioral Science "G. De Lisio", Carrara-Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to compare clinical features, treatments outcomes and tolerability between young (18-45 years), middle age (46-64 years) and old (≥ 65 years) patients treated with bilateral ECT for treatment resistant major depressive episode. METHOD: 402 patients were evaluated 1 day prior to ECT and a week after the treatment termination using the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 items (HAM-D-17), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% from baseline on the HAM-D-17 score. Remission was defined as a score ≤ 7 on the HAM-D-17 at the final evaluation. RESULTS: Rates of response were not statistically different in the three groups (69.6% in old versus 63.5% in young and 55.5% in middle age groups). No significant differences were also observed in the proportions of remitters between the age groups (31.4% in young group, 27.7% in middle age group and 29.3% in old group). One week after the end of the ECT course the middle and old age groups showed a statistically significant increase in the MMSE score compared to baseline. We did not find significant differences between the three age groups in rates of premature drops-out due to ECT-related side effects. CONCLUSION: Our data support the use of ECT in elderly patients with treatment-resistant major depressive episode, with rates of response around 70% and effectiveness being independent from age. In the old age group the baseline cognitive impairment improved after ECT and no life-threatening adverse event was detected.
OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to compare clinical features, treatments outcomes and tolerability between young (18-45 years), middle age (46-64 years) and old (≥ 65 years) patients treated with bilateral ECT for treatment resistant major depressive episode. METHOD: 402 patients were evaluated 1 day prior to ECT and a week after the treatment termination using the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 items (HAM-D-17), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% from baseline on the HAM-D-17 score. Remission was defined as a score ≤ 7 on the HAM-D-17 at the final evaluation. RESULTS: Rates of response were not statistically different in the three groups (69.6% in old versus 63.5% in young and 55.5% in middle age groups). No significant differences were also observed in the proportions of remitters between the age groups (31.4% in young group, 27.7% in middle age group and 29.3% in old group). One week after the end of the ECT course the middle and old age groups showed a statistically significant increase in the MMSE score compared to baseline. We did not find significant differences between the three age groups in rates of premature drops-out due to ECT-related side effects. CONCLUSION: Our data support the use of ECT in elderly patients with treatment-resistant major depressive episode, with rates of response around 70% and effectiveness being independent from age. In the old age group the baseline cognitive impairment improved after ECT and no life-threatening adverse event was detected.
Authors: Nicole M Benson; Stephen J Seiner; Paula Bolton; Garrett Fitzmaurice; Robert C Meisner; Casey Pierce; Alisa B Busch Journal: J ECT Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.635
Authors: James Luccarelli; Thomas H McCoy; Mai Uchida; Allison Green; Stephen J Seiner; Michael E Henry Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 3.031
Authors: Sarah H Lisanby; Shawn M McClintock; William V McCall; Rebecca G Knapp; C Munro Cullum; Martina Mueller; Zhi-De Deng; Abeba A Teklehaimanot; Matthew V Rudorfer; Elisabeth Bernhardt; George Alexopoulos; Samuel H Bailine; Mimi C Briggs; Emma T Geduldig; Robert M Greenberg; Mustafa M Husain; Styliani Kaliora; Vassilios Latoussakis; Lauren S Liebman; Georgios Petrides; Joan Prudic; Peter B Rosenquist; Shirlene Sampson; Kristen G Tobias; Richard D Weiner; Robert C Young; Charles H Kellner Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.105