The journal of ECT · 2025
A Comparison of Electroconvulsive Therapy and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Nonpsychotic Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Real-World Study in Taiwan.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Ching-Hua, Wang Chih-Jen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the response/remission rates, time to response/remission, and common side effects between treatment-resistant depression (TRD) patients receiving the electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and those receiving standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (standard rTMS).
METHODS: TRD patients who received ECT or standard rTMS between March 2014 and August 2023 were included. Only patients receiving 20 standard rTMS treatments or at least 6 ECT treatments entered the analysis. Six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) and common side effects were routinely assessed during the treatment period. Response and remission were defined as a HAMD-6 ≥50% reduction and a HAMD-6 ≤4, respectively. Survival analysis was used to compare the time to response/remission between the two groups.
RESULTS: Compared with the standard rTMS group (N = 96), the ECT group (N = 92) showed a significantly higher treatment completion rate. For completers, the ECT group (N = 74) had significantly higher response rate/remission rate and shorter time to response/remission than the standard rTMS group (N = 63). No patients treated with standard rTMS experienced subjective memory impairment or nausea/vomiting, while 82.4% and 32.4% of patients receiving ECT experienced subjective memory impairment and nausea/vomiting, respectively. The ECT group experienced significantly higher rates of headache and muscle pain than the standard rTMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard rTMS group, the ECT group was more likely to have a higher completion rate, have higher response/remission rates, a short time to response/remission, and experience more side effects during the treatment period.
METHODS: TRD patients who received ECT or standard rTMS between March 2014 and August 2023 were included. Only patients receiving 20 standard rTMS treatments or at least 6 ECT treatments entered the analysis. Six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) and common side effects were routinely assessed during the treatment period. Response and remission were defined as a HAMD-6 ≥50% reduction and a HAMD-6 ≤4, respectively. Survival analysis was used to compare the time to response/remission between the two groups.
RESULTS: Compared with the standard rTMS group (N = 96), the ECT group (N = 92) showed a significantly higher treatment completion rate. For completers, the ECT group (N = 74) had significantly higher response rate/remission rate and shorter time to response/remission than the standard rTMS group (N = 63). No patients treated with standard rTMS experienced subjective memory impairment or nausea/vomiting, while 82.4% and 32.4% of patients receiving ECT experienced subjective memory impairment and nausea/vomiting, respectively. The ECT group experienced significantly higher rates of headache and muscle pain than the standard rTMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard rTMS group, the ECT group was more likely to have a higher completion rate, have higher response/remission rates, a short time to response/remission, and experience more side effects during the treatment period.