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).
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).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.brs.2020.07.015
复制
发表时间：
2020-09
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Sackeim HA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sahlem GL;McCall WV;Short EB;Rosenquist PB;Fox JB;Youssef NA;Manett AJ;Kerns SE;Dancy MM;McCloud L;George MS;Sackeim HA
局灶性电痉挛治疗（FEAST）是电休克治疗（ECT）的一种形式，它在空间上聚焦电刺激以启动右前额皮质的癫痫活动。两项开放标签非比较研究表明，与其他形式的ECT的历史数据相比，FEAST减少了认知副作用。在两个不同的ECT诊所，我们比较了FEAST和右侧单侧超短时脉冲（RUL-UBP）ECT的疗效和认知副作用。采用非随机、开放标签设计，39名抑郁症成年人在转诊接受ECT治疗后被招募。20例患者接受FEAST（14例女性;年龄45.2±12.7），19例患者接受RUL-UBP ECT（16例女性;年龄43.2±16.4）。关键的认知结果指标是发作后重新定向的时间和哥伦比亚大学自传体记忆访谈：简表（CUAMI-SF）。使用汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HRSD 24）评估抗抑郁作用。在意向治疗样本中，重复测量混合模型表明，随时间推移，HRSD 24评分无组间差异（F1，35 = 0.82，p=0.37），而缓解率支持FEAST（FEAST：65%; RUL-UBP ECT：57.9%），缓解率支持RUL-UBP ECT（FEAST：35%; RUL-UBP ECT：47.4%）。FEAST组在平均重新定向时间（FEAST：6.6±5.0分钟; RUL-UBP ECT：8.8±5.8分钟; Cohens d = 0.41）和CUAMI-SF一致性评分（FEAST：69.2±14.2%; RUL-UBP ECT：63.9±9.9%; Cohens d = 0.43）方面具有数值优势;结果不符合统计学显著性。FEAST相对于传统ECT的最佳形式发挥类似的功效，并且可能具有较轻的认知副作用。需要进行盲法、随机、非劣效性试验。
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. 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). 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 minutes; RUL-UBP ECT: 8.8±5.8 minutes; 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Haq, Aazaz U.;Sitzmann, Adam F.;Mickey, Brian J.
通讯作者：
Mickey, Brian J.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Liang, Chih-Sung;Chung, Chi-Hsiang;Chien, Wu-Chien
通讯作者：
Chien, Wu-Chien
DOI：
10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80034-9
发表时间：
1973-01-01
期刊：
JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR
影响因子：
--
作者：
BUSCHKE, H
通讯作者：
BUSCHKE, H
DOI：
10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.03.003
发表时间：
2016-08
期刊：
European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lee WH;Lisanby SH;Laine AF;Peterchev AV
通讯作者：
Peterchev AV
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
BECK, AT;KOVACS, M;WEISSMAN, A
通讯作者：
WEISSMAN, A