Brain stimulation · 2020
A two-site, open-label, non-randomized trial comparing Focal Electrically-Administered Seizure Therapy (FEAST) and right unilateral ultrabrief pulse electroconvulsive therapy (RUL-UBP ECT).
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sahlem Gregory L, McCall William V, Short E Baron, Rosenquist Peter B, Fox James B, Youssef Nagy A, Manett Andrew J, Kerns Suzanne E, Dancy Morgan M, McCloud Laryssa, George Mark S, Sackeim Harold A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Focal Electrically-Administered Seizure Therapy (FEAST) is a form of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) that spatially focuses the electrical stimulus to initiate seizure activity in right prefrontal cortex. Two open-label non-comparative studies suggested that FEAST has reduced cognitive side effects when compared to historical data from other forms of ECT. In two different ECT clinics, we compared the efficacy and cognitive side effects of FEAST and Right Unilateral Ultrabrief Pulse (RUL-UBP) ECT.
METHODS: Using a non-randomized, open-label design, 39 depressed adults were recruited after referral for ECT. Twenty patients received FEAST (14 women; age 45.2 ± 12.7), and 19 received RUL-UBP ECT (16 women; age 43.2 ± 16.4). Key cognitive outcome measures were the postictal time to reorientation and the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview: Short-Form (CUAMI-SF). Antidepressant effects were assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD24).
RESULTS: In the Intent-to-treat sample, a repeated measures mixed model suggested no between group difference in HRSD24 score over time (F1,35 = 0.82, p = 0.37), while the response rate favored FEAST (FEAST: 65%; RUL-UBP ECT: 57.9%), and the remission rate favored RUL-UBP ECT (FEAST: 35%; RUL-UBP ECT: 47.4%). The FEAST group had numeric superiority in average time to reorientation (FEAST: 6.6 ± 5.0 min; RUL-UBP ECT: 8.8 ± 5.8 min; Cohens d = 0.41), and CUAMI-SF consistency score (FEAST: 69.2 ± 14.2%; RUL-UBP ECT: 63.9 ± 9.9%; Cohens d = 0.43); findings that failed to meet statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: FEAST exerts similar efficacy relative to an optimal form of conventional ECT and may have milder cognitive side effects. A blinded, randomized, non-inferiority trial is needed.
METHODS: Using a non-randomized, open-label design, 39 depressed adults were recruited after referral for ECT. Twenty patients received FEAST (14 women; age 45.2 ± 12.7), and 19 received RUL-UBP ECT (16 women; age 43.2 ± 16.4). Key cognitive outcome measures were the postictal time to reorientation and the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview: Short-Form (CUAMI-SF). Antidepressant effects were assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD24).
RESULTS: In the Intent-to-treat sample, a repeated measures mixed model suggested no between group difference in HRSD24 score over time (F1,35 = 0.82, p = 0.37), while the response rate favored FEAST (FEAST: 65%; RUL-UBP ECT: 57.9%), and the remission rate favored RUL-UBP ECT (FEAST: 35%; RUL-UBP ECT: 47.4%). The FEAST group had numeric superiority in average time to reorientation (FEAST: 6.6 ± 5.0 min; RUL-UBP ECT: 8.8 ± 5.8 min; Cohens d = 0.41), and CUAMI-SF consistency score (FEAST: 69.2 ± 14.2%; RUL-UBP ECT: 63.9 ± 9.9%; Cohens d = 0.43); findings that failed to meet statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: FEAST exerts similar efficacy relative to an optimal form of conventional ECT and may have milder cognitive side effects. A blinded, randomized, non-inferiority trial is needed.