{"title":"Electroconvulsive Therapy and Ketamine Infusion in Patients with Bipolar I or II Depression: A Case Series.","authors":"Keming Gao, Evrim Bayrak Oruc, Heather Wobbe, Margret Musso, Buket Koparal","doi":"10.64719/pb.18534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine infusion (KET-IFU) in routine care for patients with bipolar I or II depression (BPD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic medical records of patients who received ECT and/or KET-IFU were used to identify patients with BPD who received both ECT and KET-IFU treatments. The change in the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-16-SR) total score was used as an efficacy outcome. Self-reported side effects and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used as safety measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six patients with BPD received both ECT and KET-IFU treatments. All patients received ECT first. Five patients received KET-IFU due to subjective memory concerns from ECT although their MoCA scores were within normal range. One patient with multiple previous ECT series received two KET-IFU series followed by an ECT series. Four patients responded to acute ECT treatments well with ⩾ 50% improvement in QIDS-16-SR total scores. Two of them also responded to KET-IFU well with ⩾ 50% improvement but the onset of antidepressant effect differed. One patient did not respond to ECT or KET-IFU. The patient who had two series of KET-IFU responded well during the first KET-IFU series but had limited benefit from the second KET-IFU series. No patient discontinued KET-IFU due to an adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most patients responded to ECT well and half of them had similar benefit from KET-IFU as from ECT. Randomized, head-to-head comparison studies of ECT versus KET-IFU in BPD are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94351,"journal":{"name":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","volume":"56 3","pages":"130-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13244333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.64719/pb.18534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine infusion (KET-IFU) in routine care for patients with bipolar I or II depression (BPD).
Methods: Electronic medical records of patients who received ECT and/or KET-IFU were used to identify patients with BPD who received both ECT and KET-IFU treatments. The change in the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-16-SR) total score was used as an efficacy outcome. Self-reported side effects and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used as safety measures.
Results: Six patients with BPD received both ECT and KET-IFU treatments. All patients received ECT first. Five patients received KET-IFU due to subjective memory concerns from ECT although their MoCA scores were within normal range. One patient with multiple previous ECT series received two KET-IFU series followed by an ECT series. Four patients responded to acute ECT treatments well with ⩾ 50% improvement in QIDS-16-SR total scores. Two of them also responded to KET-IFU well with ⩾ 50% improvement but the onset of antidepressant effect differed. One patient did not respond to ECT or KET-IFU. The patient who had two series of KET-IFU responded well during the first KET-IFU series but had limited benefit from the second KET-IFU series. No patient discontinued KET-IFU due to an adverse event.
Conclusion: Most patients responded to ECT well and half of them had similar benefit from KET-IFU as from ECT. Randomized, head-to-head comparison studies of ECT versus KET-IFU in BPD are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.