Comparison of Electroconvulsive Therapy Seizure Outcomes When Using Methohexital Versus Propofol: A Brief Retrospective Report.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Yousief Fahd, Mervin Blair, Bahareh Kheiri, Lili Meng, Melissa Quaye, Richard O'Reilly, Amer M Burhan
{"title":"Comparison of Electroconvulsive Therapy Seizure Outcomes When Using Methohexital Versus Propofol: A Brief Retrospective Report.","authors":"Yousief Fahd, Mervin Blair, Bahareh Kheiri, Lili Meng, Melissa Quaye, Richard O'Reilly, Amer M Burhan","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000001301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare seizure parameters and treatment burden between methohexital and propofol during routine electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), focusing on seizure duration, treatment efficiency, and missed seizures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective chart review examined differences in seizure outcomes between 2 commonly used agents, methohexital and propofol, at the Parkwood Institute from October 2017 to October 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 132 adult patients were included: 47 received methohexital (mean age 60.9±15.4; 44.7% male) and 85 received propofol (mean age 55.1±17.1; 35.3% male). No significant demographic differences were observed. Methohexital was associated with longer motor (35.6±19.7 vs. 23.4±11.7 s; P <0.001) and EEG (50.8±28 vs. 36.8±19.2 s; P =0.003) seizure durations. It was also directly associated with a higher number of total ECT treatments (13±6.5 vs. 11±5.3; β=0.29, P <0.001), though the raw difference was only marginally significant ( P =0.08). Missed seizures were slightly fewer with methohexital (1.9±2.9 vs. 2.4±2.1; P =0.251). Multilevel structural equation modelling revealed a statistically significant indirect pathway through which methohexital influenced treatment continuity (Estimate = -0.743, P =0.044, standardized β=-0.061), mediated through motor seizure slope and missed seizures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While methohexital may initially enhance seizure quality, its decline in efficacy over time may compromise treatment efficiency. These findings suggest methohexital's initial seizure advantages may be offset by declining seizure duration across treatments and its downstream association with missed seizures. These findings may inform more efficient ECT anesthetic choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":54844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ect","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-17","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.0000000000001301","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: To compare seizure parameters and treatment burden between methohexital and propofol during routine electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), focusing on seizure duration, treatment efficiency, and missed seizures.

Methods: This retrospective chart review examined differences in seizure outcomes between 2 commonly used agents, methohexital and propofol, at the Parkwood Institute from October 2017 to October 2019.

Results: A total of 132 adult patients were included: 47 received methohexital (mean age 60.9±15.4; 44.7% male) and 85 received propofol (mean age 55.1±17.1; 35.3% male). No significant demographic differences were observed. Methohexital was associated with longer motor (35.6±19.7 vs. 23.4±11.7 s; P <0.001) and EEG (50.8±28 vs. 36.8±19.2 s; P =0.003) seizure durations. It was also directly associated with a higher number of total ECT treatments (13±6.5 vs. 11±5.3; β=0.29, P <0.001), though the raw difference was only marginally significant ( P =0.08). Missed seizures were slightly fewer with methohexital (1.9±2.9 vs. 2.4±2.1; P =0.251). Multilevel structural equation modelling revealed a statistically significant indirect pathway through which methohexital influenced treatment continuity (Estimate = -0.743, P =0.044, standardized β=-0.061), mediated through motor seizure slope and missed seizures.

Conclusions: While methohexital may initially enhance seizure quality, its decline in efficacy over time may compromise treatment efficiency. These findings suggest methohexital's initial seizure advantages may be offset by declining seizure duration across treatments and its downstream association with missed seizures. These findings may inform more efficient ECT anesthetic choices.

使用甲氧己ital与异丙酚电惊厥治疗癫痫发作结果的比较:一个简短的回顾性报告。
目的:比较常规电惊厥治疗(ECT)中甲氧己ital和异丙酚的癫痫发作参数和治疗负担,重点分析癫痫发作持续时间、治疗效率和未发作情况。方法:本回顾性图表回顾了2017年10月至2019年10月在Parkwood研究所使用的两种常用药物甲氧西ital和异丙酚的癫痫发作结局差异。结果:共纳入132例成人患者:47例使用甲氧己ital(平均年龄60.9±15.4岁,男性44.7%),85例使用异丙酚(平均年龄55.1±17.1岁,男性35.3%)。没有观察到显著的人口统计学差异。结论:虽然甲氧美啶酮最初可以提高癫痫发作质量,但随着时间的推移,其疗效的下降可能会影响治疗效果。这些发现表明,甲氧苄啶的初始癫痫发作优势可能被治疗期间癫痫发作持续时间的缩短及其与未发作的下游关联所抵消。这些发现可能为更有效的ECT麻醉选择提供信息。
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
小红书