A Computational Modeling Study of Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy and Frontoparietal Electroconvulsive Therapy.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Donel M Martin, Abdulrahman Alduraywish, Azam Ahmad Bakir, Socrates Dokos PhD, Mohsen Bakouri, Siwei Bai, Harold A Sackeim, Colleen K Loo
{"title":"A Computational Modeling Study of Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy and Frontoparietal Electroconvulsive Therapy.","authors":"Donel M Martin, Abdulrahman Alduraywish, Azam Ahmad Bakir, Socrates Dokos PhD, Mohsen Bakouri, Siwei Bai, Harold A Sackeim, Colleen K Loo","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000001135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Modification of the electrode placement with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) impacts on patient outcomes, including cognitive effects. The investigation of alternative right unilateral placements (RUL) has the potential to further improve ECT outcomes by reducing cognitive side effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study investigated differences in the intracerebral distribution of current density comparing the standard d'Elia right unilateral positioning (temporoparietal [TP]) with two recently developed RUL placements, focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST) and frontoparietal (FP) stimulation. The strength of the electrical fields (E-fields) was compared in brain regions of interest (ROIs) implicated in both clinical and cognitive outcomes. Computational modeling was conducted in the head models of five participants with major depression who had received RUL ECT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed that the FEAST and FP placements were associated with significantly less bilateral stimulation effects in regions hypothesized to be associated with memory, whereas the FP and TP placements produced significantly greater bilateral stimulation effects in some regions hypothesized to be associated with efficacy. FEAST, using a smaller anterior electrode, produced significantly greater E-fields in some ROIs associated with memory and efficacy, although those differences were much smaller in magnitude.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that both FEAST and FP may result in a superior clinical profile relative to TP. Future clinical studies are required to confirm the differences in clinical outcomes associated with the novel RUL placements.</p>","PeriodicalId":54844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ect","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ect","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000001135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Modification of the electrode placement with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) impacts on patient outcomes, including cognitive effects. The investigation of alternative right unilateral placements (RUL) has the potential to further improve ECT outcomes by reducing cognitive side effects.

Methods: This study investigated differences in the intracerebral distribution of current density comparing the standard d'Elia right unilateral positioning (temporoparietal [TP]) with two recently developed RUL placements, focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST) and frontoparietal (FP) stimulation. The strength of the electrical fields (E-fields) was compared in brain regions of interest (ROIs) implicated in both clinical and cognitive outcomes. Computational modeling was conducted in the head models of five participants with major depression who had received RUL ECT.

Results: Results showed that the FEAST and FP placements were associated with significantly less bilateral stimulation effects in regions hypothesized to be associated with memory, whereas the FP and TP placements produced significantly greater bilateral stimulation effects in some regions hypothesized to be associated with efficacy. FEAST, using a smaller anterior electrode, produced significantly greater E-fields in some ROIs associated with memory and efficacy, although those differences were much smaller in magnitude.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that both FEAST and FP may result in a superior clinical profile relative to TP. Future clinical studies are required to confirm the differences in clinical outcomes associated with the novel RUL placements.

局灶电致癫痫治疗和额顶电惊厥治疗的计算模型研究。
目的:电惊厥治疗(ECT)对患者预后的影响,包括认知影响。选择右侧单侧放置(RUL)的研究有可能通过减少认知副作用进一步改善ECT的结果。方法:本研究比较了标准d'Elia右侧单侧定位(颞顶[TP])与两种最近发展的RUL放置、局灶性电致癫痫治疗(FEAST)和额顶(FP)刺激在脑内电流密度分布上的差异。在涉及临床和认知结果的感兴趣脑区(roi)中比较电场(E-fields)的强度。对5名接受RUL电休克治疗的重度抑郁症患者的头部模型进行了计算建模。结果:结果显示,在与记忆相关的区域,FEAST和FP的放置对双侧刺激的影响明显较小,而FP和TP的放置对某些与功效相关的区域的双侧刺激的影响明显更大。FEAST使用较小的前电极,在一些与记忆和疗效相关的roi中产生明显更大的电场,尽管这些差异的幅度要小得多。结论:这些发现表明,与TP相比,FEAST和FP都可能导致更好的临床表现。未来的临床研究需要证实与新型RUL放置相关的临床结果的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Ect
Journal of Ect 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of ECT covers all aspects of contemporary electroconvulsive therapy, reporting on major clinical and research developments worldwide. Leading clinicians and researchers examine the effects of induced seizures on behavior and on organ systems; review important research results on the mode of induction, occurrence, and propagation of seizures; and explore the difficult sociological, ethical, and legal issues concerning the use of ECT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信