Samuel T Wilkinson1, Edeanya Agbese1, Douglas L Leslie1, Robert A Rosenheck1. 1. Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Rosenheck are with the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Dr. Rosenheck is also with the VA New England Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, West Haven, Connecticut. Ms. Agbese is with the Department of Public Health Sciences, and Dr. Leslie is with the Departments of Public Health Sciences and Psychiatry, all at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), limited epidemiologic research has been conducted to identify rates of ECT use and characteristics of patients who receive ECT. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with ECT use were examined among patients with mood disorders in the MarketScan commercial insurance claims database. METHODS: Among individuals with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of those who received ECT and those who did not were compared by using bivariate effect size comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among unique individuals in the 2014 MarketScan database (N=47,258,528), the ECT utilization rate was 5.56 ECT patients per 100,000 in the population. Of the 969,277 patients with a mood disorder, 2,471 (.25%) received ECT. Those who received ECT had substantially higher rates of additional comorbid psychiatric disorders (risk ratio [RR]=5.70 for any additional psychiatric disorder), numbers of prescription fills for any psychotropic medication (Cohen's d=.77), rates of any substance use disorder (RR=1.97), and total outpatient psychotherapy visits (Cohen's d=.49). The proportion of patients with a mood disorder who received ECT in the West (.19%) was substantially lower than in other U.S. regions (.28%). This difference was almost entirely accounted for by one western state comprising 59.1% of patients in that region. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECT is exceptionally uncommon and limited to patients with extensive multimorbidity and high levels of service use. ECT utilization is most limited in areas of the country where regulatory restrictions are greatest.
OBJECTIVE: Despite the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), limited epidemiologic research has been conducted to identify rates of ECT use and characteristics of patients who receive ECT. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with ECT use were examined among patients with mood disorders in the MarketScan commercial insurance claims database. METHODS: Among individuals with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of those who received ECT and those who did not were compared by using bivariate effect size comparisons and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among unique individuals in the 2014 MarketScan database (N=47,258,528), the ECT utilization rate was 5.56 ECT patients per 100,000 in the population. Of the 969,277 patients with a mood disorder, 2,471 (.25%) received ECT. Those who received ECT had substantially higher rates of additional comorbid psychiatric disorders (risk ratio [RR]=5.70 for any additional psychiatric disorder), numbers of prescription fills for any psychotropic medication (Cohen's d=.77), rates of any substance use disorder (RR=1.97), and total outpatient psychotherapy visits (Cohen's d=.49). The proportion of patients with a mood disorder who received ECT in the West (.19%) was substantially lower than in other U.S. regions (.28%). This difference was almost entirely accounted for by one western state comprising 59.1% of patients in that region. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECT is exceptionally uncommon and limited to patients with extensive multimorbidity and high levels of service use. ECT utilization is most limited in areas of the country where regulatory restrictions are greatest.
Authors: Brady G Case; David N Bertollo; Eugene M Laska; Lawrence H Price; Carole E Siegel; Mark Olfson; Steven C Marcus Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Charles H Kellner; Max Fink; Rebecca Knapp; Georgios Petrides; Mustafa Husain; Teresa Rummans; Martina Mueller; Hilary Bernstein; Keith Rasmussen; Kevin O'connor; Glenn Smith; A John Rush; Melanie Biggs; Shawn McClintock; Samuel Bailine; Chitra Malur Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Harold A Sackeim; Joan Prudic; Mitchell S Nobler; Linda Fitzsimons; Sarah H Lisanby; Nancy Payne; Robert M Berman; Eva-Lotta Brakemeier; Tarique Perera; D P Devanand Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pia Nordanskog; Martin Hultén; Mikael Landén; Johan Lundberg; Lars von Knorring; Axel Nordenskjöld Journal: J ECT Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.635
Authors: Bashkim Kadriu; Zhi-De Deng; Christoph Kraus; Ioline D Henter; Sarah H Lisanby; Carlos A Zarate Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Tyler S Kaster; Daniel M Blumberger; Tara Gomes; Rinku Sutradhar; Zafiris J Dasklakis; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Simone N Vigod Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Kamber L Hart; Michael E Henry; Thomas H McCoy; Stephen J Seiner; James Luccarelli Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 4.839
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