{"title":"两厢情愿和非两厢情愿电惊厥治疗电极放置的差异:回顾性图表回顾研究。","authors":"Hye-Sang Shin, Naveen Thomas, Yiting Amanda Gong, Rajeev Krishnadas, Alby Elias","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log-linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 200.53; <i>P</i> < 0.0001; odds ratio: 2.6673, 95% CI: 2.3244-3.0608). This association remained significant after adjustment for gender, age, level of education and diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of ECT.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 4","pages":"e126"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12247061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in electrode placements between consensual and nonconsensual electroconvulsive therapy: retrospective chart review study.\",\"authors\":\"Hye-Sang Shin, Naveen Thomas, Yiting Amanda Gong, Rajeev Krishnadas, Alby Elias\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjo.2025.10053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log-linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 200.53; <i>P</i> < 0.0001; odds ratio: 2.6673, 95% CI: 2.3244-3.0608). This association remained significant after adjustment for gender, age, level of education and diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of ECT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"volume\":\"11 4\",\"pages\":\"e126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12247061/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10053\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences in electrode placements between consensual and nonconsensual electroconvulsive therapy: retrospective chart review study.
Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT.
Aims: To investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes.
Method: Using a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log-linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis.
Results: In total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group (χ2 = 200.53; P < 0.0001; odds ratio: 2.6673, 95% CI: 2.3244-3.0608). This association remained significant after adjustment for gender, age, level of education and diagnosis.
Conclusion: Significantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of ECT.
期刊介绍:
Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.