Meng-Ling Hsieh1,2, Yen-Ting Lu1,2, Chih-Chung Lin1,2, Chin-Pang Lee3,4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 3. School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. b9002066@cloud.cgmh.org.tw. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan. b9002066@cloud.cgmh.org.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is a well-established method of procedural sedation and has been used in Japan for anesthesia during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). However, the usefulness of the TCI of propofol for ECT has yet to be determined. This study aimed to compare the TCI and manual infusion (MI) of propofol anesthesia during ECT. METHODS: A total of forty psychiatric inpatients receivingbitemporal ECT were enrolled in the present study and randomized into the TCI group (N = 20) and the MI group (N = 20). Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores were measured before and after ECT. The clinical outcomes, anesthesia-related variables, and ECT-related variables were compared between the two groups. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to model the comparison throughout the course of ECT. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects completed the present study, with 18 subjects in each group. Both the groups didn't significantly differ in the post-ECT changes in CGI and MoCA scores. However, concerning MoCA scores after 6 treatments of ECT, the MI group had improvement while the TCI group had deterioration. Compared with the MI group, the TCI group had higher doses of propofol, and longer procedural and recovery time. The TCI group seemed to have more robust seizures in the early course of ECT but less robust seizures in the later course of ECT compared with the MI group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support the use of TCI of propofol for anesthesia of ECT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03863925 . Registered March 5, 2019 - Retrospectively registered.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is a well-established method of procedural sedation and has been used in Japan for anesthesia during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). However, the usefulness of the TCI of propofol for ECT has yet to be determined. This study aimed to compare the TCI and manual infusion (MI) of propofol anesthesia during ECT. METHODS: A total of forty psychiatric inpatients receiving bitemporal ECT were enrolled in the present study and randomized into the TCI group (N = 20) and the MI group (N = 20). Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores were measured before and after ECT. The clinical outcomes, anesthesia-related variables, and ECT-related variables were compared between the two groups. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to model the comparison throughout the course of ECT. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects completed the present study, with 18 subjects in each group. Both the groups didn't significantly differ in the post-ECT changes in CGI and MoCA scores. However, concerning MoCA scores after 6 treatments of ECT, the MI group had improvement while the TCI group had deterioration. Compared with the MI group, the TCI group had higher doses of propofol, and longer procedural and recovery time. The TCI group seemed to have more robust seizures in the early course of ECT but less robust seizures in the later course of ECT compared with the MI group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support the use of TCI of propofol for anesthesia of ECT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03863925 . Registered March 5, 2019 - Retrospectively registered.
Authors: Max Fink; Georgios Petrides; Charles Kellner; Martina Mueller; Rebecca Knapp; Mustafa M Husain; Keith Rasmussen; Teri Rummans; Kevin O'Connor Journal: J ECT Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.635
Authors: Caroline Holtkamp; Björn Koos; Matthias Unterberg; Tim Rahmel; Lars Bergmann; Zainab Bazzi; Maha Bazzi; Hassan Bukhari; Michael Adamzik; Katharina Rump Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 3.240