Key result
Switching to brief pulse ECT from ultrabrief pulse ECT in non-responders at treatment #5 increased the odds of late response compared to continuing ultrabrief pulse (aOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.16-2.07).
Why the study?
More research is needed to examine predictors of response to electroconvulsive therapy and factors associated with response in patients not initially improving.
Does switching to brief pulse width ECT improve response in patients with moderate to severe depression who do not respond to initial ultrabrief pulse ECT?
Cohort (n=1,699)
No
Does switching to brief pulse width ECT improve response in patients with moderate to severe depression who do not respond to initial ultrabrief pulse ECT?
Odds Ratio: 1.55 (95% CI 1.16–2.07)
In depressed patients not responding to initial ultrabrief pulse ECT, switching to brief pulse ECT improves the odds of subsequent treatment response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Switching to brief-pulse ECT after early nonresponse may raise later response odds; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation before practice change.
Hart et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Moderate to severe depressive symptoms (n=1,699). Switching to brief pulse width ECT vs. Continuing ultrabrief pulse ECT was evaluated on Response (≥50% decrease in QIDS score) after treatment #5 (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.07). Switching to brief pulse ECT from ultrabrief pulse ECT in non-responders at treatment #5 increased the odds of late response compared to continuing ultrabrief pulse (aOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.16-2.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: