Search

Background: Intravenous (IV) ketamine has been evaluated alongside electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in addressing major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression (BD), though the comparative outcomes remain inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of IV ketamine relative to ECT for treating MDD or BD., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV ketamine and ECT in terms of efficacy, safety, and tolerability for MDD or BD were identified and reviewed. Three independent investigators extracted relevant data, which was synthesized using RevMan 5.3 software under a random effects model., Results: Five RCTs encompassing 664 patients diagnosed with MDD or BD were analyzed. At 24 h post-initial treatment, IV ketamine demonstrated a statistically greater reduction in depressive symptoms compared to ECT (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.49, 95 % CI = -0.96 to -0.03, I 2 = 77 %; P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were observed between groups in terms of the study-defined response (risk ratio (RR) = 1.49, 95 % CI = 0.08 to 28.42, I 2 = 0 %; P = 0.79) at 24 h. Similarly, no notable differences were found for depressive symptom improvement (SMD = -0.48, 95 % CI = -2.41 to 1.45, I 2 = 99 %; P = 0.63), the study-defined response (RR = 0.96, 95 % CI: 0.70 to 1.31, I 2 = 75 %; P = 0.79) or remission (RR = 0.91, 95 % CI: 0.45 to 1.82, I 2 = 90 %; P = 0.78) at the end-of-treatment visit. Among the three RCTs (60 %) comparing the neurocognitive outcomes of IV ketamine and ECT through varying test batteries, results were inconsistent. IV ketamine was associated with marked increases in dissociation, blurred vision, dizziness, and diplopia, while ECT led to a significant rise in muscle pain (all Ps < 0.05). Discontinuation rates due to any cause were comparable between both groups (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: IV ketamine demonstrates a faster onset of antidepressant effects compared to ECT, despite both treatments yielding comparable outcomes at the end-of-treatment visit for patients with MDD or BD. However, large-scale RCTs are required to thoroughly evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of IV ketamine relative to ECT in these populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest in conducting this study or preparing the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a commonly used alternative for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although esketamine has a rapid pharmacological antidepressant action, it has not been studied as an ECT anesthetic. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of esketamine with propofol when both are used as ECT anesthetic agents., Methods: Forty patients with TRD were assigned to one of two arms in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial: esketamine or propofol anesthesia for a series of eight ECT sessions. Using a non-inferiority design, the primary outcome was the reduction in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms. The other outcomes were: rates of response and remission, anxiety, suicidal ideation, cognitive function, and adverse events. These were compared in an intention-to-treat analysis., Results: Esketamine-ECT was non-inferior to propofol-ECT for reducing TRD symptoms after 8 sessions (adjusted Δ = 2.0, 95 % CI: -1.2-5.1). Compared to propofol-ECT, esketamine-ECT also had higher depression response (80 % vs. 70 %; p = .06) and remission (65 % vs. 55 %; p = .11) rates but non-inferiority was not established. In four components of cognitive function (speed of processing, working memory, visual learning, and verbal learning) esketamine-ECT was non-inferior to propofol-ECT. The results for anxiety, suicidal ideation, and adverse events (all p's > .05) were inconclusive., Conclusion: Esketamine was non-inferior to propofol when both are used as anesthetics for TRD patients undergoing ECT. Replication studies with larger samples are needed to examine the inconclusive results., Registration Number: ChiCTR2000033715., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest in conducting this study or preparing the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)-induced fever can significantly affect patient experience, treatment adherence, and the course of treatment. However, little is known about the prevalence of ECT-induced fever and its associated risk factors in patients with major mental disorders (MMD). Methods: This retrospective, case-control study included 113 cases and 226 age-matched controls (1:2). The case group comprised patients who exhibited an axillary temperature of ≥37.5°C (99.5°F) at least once within 24 hours post-ECT. Patients diagnosed with MMD underwent ECT between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, at a large psychiatric hospital in China. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic chart management system (ECMS) for both groups. Results: The prevalence of ECT-induced fever in patients with MMD was 6.8% [113/1,674, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6% to 8.0%], with a session-based prevalence of 1.1% (130/11,570, 95% CI: 0.9% to 1.3%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified paliperidone [odds ratios (OR)=2.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 4.9] as a risk factor, while quetiapine (OR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.8) was found to be protective. No significant association between etomidate and ECT-induced fever was observed in univariate analysis (p >0.05). Conclusions: This study found a relatively low prevalence of ECT-induced fever. Paliperidone was identified as a risk factor, while quetiapine had a protective effect. Etomidate was not significantly associated with ECT-induced fever in patients with MMD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: As a new physical therapeutic technique, magnetic seizure therapy (MST) has established efficacy in the treatment of depression with few cognitive side effects, and thus appears to be a potential alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of MST versus ECT for depression are inconsistent. This systematic review of RCTs was designed with the aim of assessing the safety and efficacy of MST versus ECT for patients with depression. Methods: The WanFang, Chinese Journal Net (CNKI), EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched by three independent investigators, from their inceptions to July 24, 2021. Results: In total, four RCTs (n = 86) were included and analyzed. Meta-analyses of study-defined response (risk ratio (RR) = 1.36; 95% CI = 0.78 to 2.36; p = 0.28; I2 = 0%), study-defined remission (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.61 to 2.23; p = 0.64; I2 = 0%), and the improvement in depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.21; 95% CI = −0.29 to 0.71; p = 0.42; I2 = 0%) did not present significant differences between MST and ECT. Three RCTs evaluated the cognitive effects of MST compared with ECT using different cognitive measuring tools, but with mixed findings. Only two RCTs reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but these lacked specific data. Only one RCT reported discontinuation due to any reason. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that MST appears to have a similar antidepressant effect as ECT for depression, but mixed findings on adverse cognitive effects were reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]