Systematic review and meta-analysis of bifrontal electroconvulsive therapy versus bilateral and unilateral electroconvulsive therapy in depression.
Loading...
Authors
Dunne, Ross A
McLoughlin, Declan M
Issue Date
2011-11-18
Type
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Language
en
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and side effects of bifrontal (BF) ECT to bitemporal (BT) or unilateral (RUL) ECT in depression.
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing BF ECT with RUL or BT ECT in depression. Eight trials (n=617) reported some cognitive outcome. Efficacy was measured by reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score. Cognitive outcomes were limited to Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in seven studies, with two studies measuring each of: Complex-figure delayed recall, Trail-making tests and verbal learning.
Efficacy was equal between BF and BT ECT (Hedges's g=0.102, P=0.345, confidence interval (CI): -0.110, 0.313) and BF and RUL ECT (standardized mean difference=-0.12, P=0.365, CI: -0.378, 0.139). Post-treatment MMSE score decline was less for BF than BT ECT (g=0.89, CI: 0.054, 1.724) but not RUL ECT. RUL ECT impaired Complex figure recall more than BF ECT (g=0.76, CI :0.487, 1.035), but BF ECT impaired word recall more than RUL ECT (g=-1.45, CI: -2.75, -0.15).
Bifrontal ECT is not more effective than BT or RUL ECT but may have modest short-term benefits for specific memory domains. BF ECT has potential advantages, but given longer experience with BT and RUL, bifrontal ECT requires better characterization.
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing BF ECT with RUL or BT ECT in depression. Eight trials (n=617) reported some cognitive outcome. Efficacy was measured by reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score. Cognitive outcomes were limited to Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in seven studies, with two studies measuring each of: Complex-figure delayed recall, Trail-making tests and verbal learning.
Efficacy was equal between BF and BT ECT (Hedges's g=0.102, P=0.345, confidence interval (CI): -0.110, 0.313) and BF and RUL ECT (standardized mean difference=-0.12, P=0.365, CI: -0.378, 0.139). Post-treatment MMSE score decline was less for BF than BT ECT (g=0.89, CI: 0.054, 1.724) but not RUL ECT. RUL ECT impaired Complex figure recall more than BF ECT (g=0.76, CI :0.487, 1.035), but BF ECT impaired word recall more than RUL ECT (g=-1.45, CI: -2.75, -0.15).
Bifrontal ECT is not more effective than BT or RUL ECT but may have modest short-term benefits for specific memory domains. BF ECT has potential advantages, but given longer experience with BT and RUL, bifrontal ECT requires better characterization.
Description
Citation
Dunne, R. A., & McLoughlin, D. M. (2012). Systematic review and meta-analysis of bifrontal electroconvulsive therapy versus bilateral and unilateral electroconvulsive therapy in depression. The world journal of biological psychiatry : the official journal of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry, 13(4), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.615863
Publisher
License
Journal
The world journal of biological psychiatry : the official journal of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry
Volume
13
Issue
4
PubMed ID
ISSN
1814-1412