The Relative Efficacy and Side-Effect Profile of Ultrabrief Pulse and Brief Pulse ECT: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Rishi Gonuguntla, Sam Dunham, Isaac Benmaman, Neha Gonuguntla, Kevin Ha
{"title":"The Relative Efficacy and Side-Effect Profile of Ultrabrief Pulse and Brief Pulse ECT: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature.","authors":"Rishi Gonuguntla, Sam Dunham, Isaac Benmaman, Neha Gonuguntla, Kevin Ha","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000001164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an interventional psychiatric technique used primarily to address treatment resistant psychiatric disorders. There are many different stimulus electrode placements and pulse widths utilized in the administration of this therapy, but it is presently unclear which is optimal. The aim of this study is to assess the relative efficacy and side-effect profile of ultrabrief pulse width ECT (UBP ECT) and brief-pulse width ECT (BP ECT) in the treatment of major depressive disorders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was performed. Studies were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE and PsycINFO between January 2013 to October 2023. The final search terms included ECT, depression, brief pulse, and ultrabrief pulse.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search initially included 64 studies. Forty-three of these studies were not duplicates, after applying exclusion criteria 11 studies were included. UBP ECT was found to have fewer cognitive side effects than BP ECT. Additionally, patients undergoing BP ECT were found to discontinue treatment more frequently due to inability to tolerate side effects. Despite this, BP ECT may have higher rates of symptom remission than UBP ECT. Further studies should be done to clarify the outcomes of each technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current evidence slightly favors UBP ECT due to its beneficial side effect profile compared to BP ECT while it has a similar efficacy. However, there is insubstantial evidence in the current body of literature. Additional studies are required to determine which of these techniques is safer and more efficacious in the treatment of major depressive disorders.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review.</p>","PeriodicalId":54844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ect","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","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.0000000000001164","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

Objective: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an interventional psychiatric technique used primarily to address treatment resistant psychiatric disorders. There are many different stimulus electrode placements and pulse widths utilized in the administration of this therapy, but it is presently unclear which is optimal. The aim of this study is to assess the relative efficacy and side-effect profile of ultrabrief pulse width ECT (UBP ECT) and brief-pulse width ECT (BP ECT) in the treatment of major depressive disorders.

Method: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Studies were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE and PsycINFO between January 2013 to October 2023. The final search terms included ECT, depression, brief pulse, and ultrabrief pulse.

Results: The search initially included 64 studies. Forty-three of these studies were not duplicates, after applying exclusion criteria 11 studies were included. UBP ECT was found to have fewer cognitive side effects than BP ECT. Additionally, patients undergoing BP ECT were found to discontinue treatment more frequently due to inability to tolerate side effects. Despite this, BP ECT may have higher rates of symptom remission than UBP ECT. Further studies should be done to clarify the outcomes of each technique.

Conclusions: The current evidence slightly favors UBP ECT due to its beneficial side effect profile compared to BP ECT while it has a similar efficacy. However, there is insubstantial evidence in the current body of literature. Additional studies are required to determine which of these techniques is safer and more efficacious in the treatment of major depressive disorders.

Study design: Systematic review.

超短脉冲和短脉冲电痉挛的相对疗效和副作用:近期文献的系统综述。
目的:电休克治疗(ECT)是一种主要用于治疗难治性精神疾病的介入性精神病学技术。有许多不同的刺激电极的位置和脉冲宽度用于该疗法的管理,但目前尚不清楚哪一个是最佳的。本研究的目的是评估超短脉宽电痉挛(UBP ECT)和短脉宽电痉挛(BP ECT)治疗重度抑郁症的相对疗效和副作用。方法:对相关文献进行系统回顾。研究从2013年1月至2023年10月的PubMed, MEDLINE和PsycINFO中确定。最后的搜索词包括ECT,抑郁症,短脉冲和超短脉冲。结果:搜索最初包括64项研究。其中43项研究没有重复,应用排除标准后纳入了11项研究。发现UBP电休克比BP电休克有更少的认知副作用。此外,发现接受BP ECT的患者由于无法忍受副作用而更频繁地停止治疗。尽管如此,BP ECT可能比UBP ECT有更高的症状缓解率。应该做进一步的研究来阐明每种技术的结果。结论:目前的证据略微倾向于UBP ECT,因为与BP ECT相比,UBP ECT具有有益的副作用,而其疗效相似。然而,在目前的文献中没有充分的证据。需要进一步的研究来确定这些技术中哪一种在治疗重度抑郁症方面更安全、更有效。研究设计:系统评价。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信