Search

Objective: Patients with late life depression sometimes refuse to receive electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) owing to its adverse reactions. To alleviate patient's resistance, a novel ECT stimulation strategy named mixed-strategy ECT (msECT) was designed in which patients are administered conventional ECT during the first three sessions, followed by low energy stimulation during the subsequent sessions. However, whether low energy electrical stimulation in the subsequent stage of therapy affect its efficacy and reduce adverse reactions in patients with late life depression remains unknown. To explore differences between msECT and regular ECT(RECT) with respect to clinical efficacy and side effects., Methods: This randomized, controlled trial was conducted from 2019 to 2021 on 60 patients with late life depression who were randomly assigned to two groups: RECT or msECT. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the two stimulation strategies regarding their efficacy and side effects on cognition. Chi-squared test was used to compare side effects in the two strategies., Results: In the intent-to-treat group, the GEE model suggested no differences between-group difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 score over time (Wald χ2=7.275, p=0.064), whereas the comparison of side effects in the two strategies favored msECT (Wald χ2=8.463, p=0.015) as fewer patients had adverse events during the second phase of treatment with msECT (χ2 =13.467, p=0.004)., Conclusion: msECT presents its similar efficacy to RECT. msECT may have milder side effects on cognition.

To examine the feasibility of low-charge electrotherapy (LCE) in treating geriatric major depressive disorder (MDD) patients. Bi-temporal LCEs (approximately 25 mC) were performed with an electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) instrument three times per week. We used the Hamilton Depression Scale 17 (HAMD-17) and the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) to assess the effects of LCE and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) to evaluate the cognitive function change before and after LCE. Six visits occurred at the baseline, after LCE sessions 3, 6, and 9, after the last session, and at the end of the one-month follow-up period. Four patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients completed all LCE sessions. Two patients withdrew during the trial, one due to the adverse event of uroschesis potentially caused by atropine and the other due to her own will. All four patients completed the follow-up sessions. The HAMD-17 and HAMA scores were reduced significantly at the last LCE session and the end of the follow-up period compared with the scores at the baseline. As measured by the MMSE, cognitive impairment showed no significant changes at the last LCE session and the end of the follow-up period compared with that at the baseline. In this case series, LCE showed potential as an alternative current-based treatment for treating geriatric MDD patients. Further research is needed to assess the efficiency and safety of LCE.