Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparison of ultra-ultrabrief and ultrabrief pulse widths in right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy: A randomized trial

J. Žaludová Heidingerová, J. Albrecht, M. Anders, D. Divácký, G. Jirečková, T. Le Hong, T. Mareš, V. Čapek, HA. Sackeim, J. Buday

. 2025 ; 18 (3) : 838-847. [pub] 20250221

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, srovnávací studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25015947

BACKGROUND: Ultrabrief stimulation in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) using a 0.25 or 0.30 ms pulse width markedly reduces the charge required to reach the seizure threshold (ST) and cognitive side effects. It is not known whether further reduction of pulse width to 0.15 ms is advantageous. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to ST titration at the first session applying right unilateral (RUL) ECT with either a 0.15 or 0.30 ms pulse width and were titrated again in the second session using the alternative pulse width. All subsequent treatments used the pulse width applied in the second titration session, administering RUL ECT, starting at 6xST. The primary outcome was difference between the pulse widths in ST at the two titration sessions. Exploratory analyses examined differences in seizure duration and postictal time to recover orientation (TRO), averaged across all ECT sessions from the third onwards. Other exploratory analyses examined clinical improvement and retrograde amnesia for autobiographical information and other neuropsychological functions following the ECT course. RESULTS: In the first titration session, ST was significantly lower with the 0.15 ms than 0.30 ms pulse width. ST significantly increased when re-titrating with the 0.30 ms pulse width and significantly decreased when re-titrating with a 0.15 ms pulse width. There were no differences between the pulse width groups in clinical improvement, TRO, or neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-ultrabrief stimulation with a 0.15 ms pulse width is more efficient in seizure induction than a 0.30 ms pulse width. Comprehensive studies should determine whether ultra-ultrabrief stimulation replaces ultrabrief stimulation as a default parameter for ECT.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25015947
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250731091357.0
007      
ta
008      
250708s2025 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.brs.2025.02.017 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39988121
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Žaludová Heidingerová, Jana $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Comparison of ultra-ultrabrief and ultrabrief pulse widths in right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy: A randomized trial / $c J. Žaludová Heidingerová, J. Albrecht, M. Anders, D. Divácký, G. Jirečková, T. Le Hong, T. Mareš, V. Čapek, HA. Sackeim, J. Buday
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Ultrabrief stimulation in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) using a 0.25 or 0.30 ms pulse width markedly reduces the charge required to reach the seizure threshold (ST) and cognitive side effects. It is not known whether further reduction of pulse width to 0.15 ms is advantageous. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to ST titration at the first session applying right unilateral (RUL) ECT with either a 0.15 or 0.30 ms pulse width and were titrated again in the second session using the alternative pulse width. All subsequent treatments used the pulse width applied in the second titration session, administering RUL ECT, starting at 6xST. The primary outcome was difference between the pulse widths in ST at the two titration sessions. Exploratory analyses examined differences in seizure duration and postictal time to recover orientation (TRO), averaged across all ECT sessions from the third onwards. Other exploratory analyses examined clinical improvement and retrograde amnesia for autobiographical information and other neuropsychological functions following the ECT course. RESULTS: In the first titration session, ST was significantly lower with the 0.15 ms than 0.30 ms pulse width. ST significantly increased when re-titrating with the 0.30 ms pulse width and significantly decreased when re-titrating with a 0.15 ms pulse width. There were no differences between the pulse width groups in clinical improvement, TRO, or neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-ultrabrief stimulation with a 0.15 ms pulse width is more efficient in seizure induction than a 0.30 ms pulse width. Comprehensive studies should determine whether ultra-ultrabrief stimulation replaces ultrabrief stimulation as a default parameter for ECT.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a elektrokonvulzívní terapie $x metody $x škodlivé účinky $7 D004565
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a záchvaty $x terapie $7 D012640
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
700    1_
$a Albrecht, Jakub $u University Department of Psychiatry Faculty of Health Studies Jan Evangelista Purkyně University and Department of Psychiatry Most, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Anders, Martin $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Divácký, Daniel $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jirečková, Gabriela $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Le Hong, Thai $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mareš, Tadeáš $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Čapek, Václav $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sackeim, Harold A $u Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
700    1_
$a Buday, Jozef $u Department of Psychiatry, Charles University, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: jozef.buday@vfn.cz
773    0_
$w MED00166625 $t Brain stimulation $x 1876-4754 $g Roč. 18, č. 3 (2025), s. 838-847
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39988121 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250708 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250731091352 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2366648 $s 1253072
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 18 $c 3 $d 838-847 $e 20250221 $i 1876-4754 $m Brain stimulation $n Brain Stimul $x MED00166625
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250708

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...