C. Galletly, Benjamin L. Carnell, P. Clarke, S. Gill
{"title":"右单侧和顺序双侧重复经颅磁刺激治疗重度抑郁症的比较:澳大利亚的一项自然临床研究","authors":"C. Galletly, Benjamin L. Carnell, P. Clarke, S. Gill","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000000359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background A great deal of research has established the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. However, questions remain about the optimal method to deliver treatment. One area requiring consideration is the difference in efficacy between bilateral and unilateral treatment protocols. Objective This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Methods A total of 135 patients participated in the study, receiving either bilateral rTMS (N = 57) or right unilateral rTMS (N = 78). Treatment response was assessed using the Hamilton depression rating scale. Results Sequential bilateral rTMS had a higher response rate than right unilateral (43.9% vs 30.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant. This was also the case for remission rates (33.3% vs 21.8%, respectively). Controlling for pretreatment severity of depression, the results did not indicate a significant difference between the protocols with regard to posttreatment Hamilton depression rating scale scores. Conclusions The current study found no statistically significant differences in response and remission rates between sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Given the shorter treatment time and the greater safety and tolerability of right unilateral rTMS, this may be a better choice than bilateral treatment in clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":287576,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of ECT","volume":"210 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Right Unilateral and Sequential Bilateral Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depression: A Naturalistic Clinical Australian Study\",\"authors\":\"C. Galletly, Benjamin L. Carnell, P. Clarke, S. Gill\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/YCT.0000000000000359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background A great deal of research has established the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. However, questions remain about the optimal method to deliver treatment. One area requiring consideration is the difference in efficacy between bilateral and unilateral treatment protocols. Objective This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Methods A total of 135 patients participated in the study, receiving either bilateral rTMS (N = 57) or right unilateral rTMS (N = 78). Treatment response was assessed using the Hamilton depression rating scale. Results Sequential bilateral rTMS had a higher response rate than right unilateral (43.9% vs 30.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant. This was also the case for remission rates (33.3% vs 21.8%, respectively). Controlling for pretreatment severity of depression, the results did not indicate a significant difference between the protocols with regard to posttreatment Hamilton depression rating scale scores. Conclusions The current study found no statistically significant differences in response and remission rates between sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Given the shorter treatment time and the greater safety and tolerability of right unilateral rTMS, this may be a better choice than bilateral treatment in clinical settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":287576,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of ECT\",\"volume\":\"210 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of ECT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000359\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of ECT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
背景大量的研究已经证实了重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)治疗抑郁症的疗效。然而,关于提供治疗的最佳方法仍然存在问题。需要考虑的一个领域是双边和单方治疗方案之间疗效的差异。目的比较顺序双侧rTMS与右侧单侧rTMS的疗效。方法135例患者分别接受双侧rTMS (N = 57)和右侧单侧rTMS (N = 78)。采用汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表评估治疗效果。结果顺序双侧rTMS有效率高于右侧单侧(43.9% vs 30.8%),但差异无统计学意义。缓解率也是如此(分别为33.3%和21.8%)。在控制治疗前抑郁严重程度的情况下,两种治疗方案在汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表评分方面没有显著差异。结论目前的研究发现,顺序双侧rTMS和右侧单侧rTMS在缓解率和缓解率方面没有统计学上的显著差异。考虑到右侧单侧rTMS治疗时间更短,安全性和耐受性更强,在临床环境中,这可能是比双侧治疗更好的选择。
A Comparison of Right Unilateral and Sequential Bilateral Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depression: A Naturalistic Clinical Australian Study
Background A great deal of research has established the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. However, questions remain about the optimal method to deliver treatment. One area requiring consideration is the difference in efficacy between bilateral and unilateral treatment protocols. Objective This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Methods A total of 135 patients participated in the study, receiving either bilateral rTMS (N = 57) or right unilateral rTMS (N = 78). Treatment response was assessed using the Hamilton depression rating scale. Results Sequential bilateral rTMS had a higher response rate than right unilateral (43.9% vs 30.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant. This was also the case for remission rates (33.3% vs 21.8%, respectively). Controlling for pretreatment severity of depression, the results did not indicate a significant difference between the protocols with regard to posttreatment Hamilton depression rating scale scores. Conclusions The current study found no statistically significant differences in response and remission rates between sequential bilateral rTMS and right unilateral rTMS. Given the shorter treatment time and the greater safety and tolerability of right unilateral rTMS, this may be a better choice than bilateral treatment in clinical settings.