Search

Objectives: To review brief cognitive screening instruments for routine clinical monitoring in electroconvulsive therapy. Methods: Brief cognitive screening instruments specifically developed for electroconvulsive therapy and commonly used brief generalised cognitive screening instruments were reviewed with relative advantages and disadvantages highlighted. Results: Several brief cognitive screening tests designed for use in electroconvulsive therapy have been found sensitive for monitoring electroconvulsive therapy–related cognitive side effects. The choice of a brief generalised cognitive screening instrument for use in an electroconvulsive therapy clinical context comes with several pertinent considerations. Conclusion: Electroconvulsive therapy is a highly effective treatment for pharmacoresistant and severe neuropsychiatric illness although cognitive side effects can be a barrier for treatment. Routine monitoring using brief cognitive screening instruments has advantages in busy clinical settings and can assist with optimising patient outcomes. More detailed neuropsychological assessment is recommended if the results from brief cognitive screening raise concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop an individualized method for detecting cognitive adverse events (CAEs) in the context of an ongoing trial of electroconvulsive therapy for refractory agitation and aggression for advanced dementia (ECT-AD study). Methods: Literature search aimed at identifying (a) cognitive measures appropriate for patients with advanced dementia, (b) functional scales to use as a proxy for cognitive status in patients with floor effects on baseline cognitive testing, and (c) statistical approaches for defining a CAE, to develop CAEs monitoring plan specifically for the ECT-AD study. Results: Using the Severe Impairment Battery-8 (SIB-8), baseline floor effects are defined as a score of ≤5/16. For patients without floor effects, a decline of ≥6 points is considered a CAE. For patients with floor effects, a decline of ≥30 points from baseline on the Barthel Index is considered a CAE. These values were derived using the standard deviation index (SDI) approach to measuring reliable change. Conclusions: The proposed plan accounts for practical and statistical challenges in detecting CAEs in patients with advanced dementia. While this protocol was developed in the context of the ECT-AD study, the general approach can potentially be applied to other interventional neuropsychiatric studies that carry the risk of CAEs in patients with advanced dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]