氯胺酮与电惊厥治疗重度抑郁症的疗效和安全性比较:一项随机对照试验的meta分析。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Zhijian Ma, Fengle Wu, Wen Zheng
{"title":"氯胺酮与电惊厥治疗重度抑郁症的疗效和安全性比较:一项随机对照试验的meta分析。","authors":"Zhijian Ma, Fengle Wu, Wen Zheng","doi":"10.1007/s11126-025-10121-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients with major depressive disorder(MDD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to November 2024. The randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of ketamine and ECT in MDD patients were included. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool was employed to assess study quality. Six studies encompassing 643 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was observed in depression symptom severity scores between ketamine and ECT groups (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.48, P = 0.92). Response rates also showed no significant difference between the two interventions (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.72, P = 0.76). Notably, ketamine demonstrated superior memory function improvement compared to ECT (SMD: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.64 to 2.48, P < 0.001). In terms of adverse events, ketamine was associated with significantly higher rates of dissociative symptoms, blurred vision, and dizziness(all P < 0.001), while demonstrating a lower incidence of muscle pain(P < 0.001). The meta-analysis revealed ketamine as a non-inferior therapeutic option for patients with major depressive disorder, with potential advantages in memory function. While promising, the limited number of included studies necessitates further large-scale randomized controlled trials using standardized assessment scales to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":20658,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine Versus Electroconvulsive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Zhijian Ma, Fengle Wu, Wen Zheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11126-025-10121-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients with major depressive disorder(MDD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to November 2024. The randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of ketamine and ECT in MDD patients were included. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool was employed to assess study quality. Six studies encompassing 643 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was observed in depression symptom severity scores between ketamine and ECT groups (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.48, P = 0.92). Response rates also showed no significant difference between the two interventions (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.72, P = 0.76). Notably, ketamine demonstrated superior memory function improvement compared to ECT (SMD: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.64 to 2.48, P < 0.001). In terms of adverse events, ketamine was associated with significantly higher rates of dissociative symptoms, blurred vision, and dizziness(all P < 0.001), while demonstrating a lower incidence of muscle pain(P < 0.001). The meta-analysis revealed ketamine as a non-inferior therapeutic option for patients with major depressive disorder, with potential advantages in memory function. While promising, the limited number of included studies necessitates further large-scale randomized controlled trials using standardized assessment scales to validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20658,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatric Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatric Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-025-10121-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-025-10121-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本荟萃分析旨在比较氯胺酮与电痉挛治疗(ECT)对重度抑郁症(MDD)患者的疗效和安全性。到2024年11月,对PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库进行了全面的文献检索。纳入评价氯胺酮和电痉挛治疗重度抑郁症的疗效和安全性的随机对照试验。以95%置信区间计算合并标准化平均差(SMD)和风险比(RR)。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。6项研究包括643名患者进行了分析。氯胺酮组与ECT组抑郁症状严重程度评分差异无统计学意义(SMD: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.53 ~ 0.48, P = 0.92)。两种干预措施的有效率也无显著差异(RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 1.72, P = 0.76)。值得注意的是,与ECT相比,氯胺酮显示出更好的记忆功能改善(SMD: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.64至2.48,P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine Versus Electroconvulsive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients with major depressive disorder(MDD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to November 2024. The randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of ketamine and ECT in MDD patients were included. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool was employed to assess study quality. Six studies encompassing 643 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was observed in depression symptom severity scores between ketamine and ECT groups (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.48, P = 0.92). Response rates also showed no significant difference between the two interventions (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.72, P = 0.76). Notably, ketamine demonstrated superior memory function improvement compared to ECT (SMD: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.64 to 2.48, P < 0.001). In terms of adverse events, ketamine was associated with significantly higher rates of dissociative symptoms, blurred vision, and dizziness(all P < 0.001), while demonstrating a lower incidence of muscle pain(P < 0.001). The meta-analysis revealed ketamine as a non-inferior therapeutic option for patients with major depressive disorder, with potential advantages in memory function. While promising, the limited number of included studies necessitates further large-scale randomized controlled trials using standardized assessment scales to validate these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychiatric Quarterly
Psychiatric Quarterly PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Psychiatric Quarterly publishes original research, theoretical papers, and review articles on the assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons with psychiatric disabilities, with emphasis on care provided in public, community, and private institutional settings such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. Qualitative and quantitative studies concerning the social, clinical, administrative, legal, political, and ethical aspects of mental health care fall within the scope of the journal. Content areas include, but are not limited to, evidence-based practice in prevention, diagnosis, and management of psychiatric disorders; interface of psychiatry with primary and specialty medicine; disparities of access and outcomes in health care service delivery; and socio-cultural and cross-cultural aspects of mental health and wellness, including mental health literacy. 5 Year Impact Factor: 1.023 (2007) Section ''Psychiatry'': Rank 70 out of 82
×
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