Key result
Bifrontal ECT resulted in less severe bradycardia (expected HR 78 vs 46 and 35 bpm; P<0.001) and lower asystole incidence than bitemporal and right unilateral ECT.
Why the study?
Does bifrontal or ultrabrief pulsewidth ECT reduce the risk of bradycardia and asystole compared to bitemporal or standard pulsewidth RUL ECT in patients undergoing ECT for severe depression?
Population
114 patients undergoing 476 electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatments for severe depression
Comparison
Bifrontal ECT and ultrabrief pulsewidth right… vs Bitemporal ECT and standard pulsewidth RUL ECT
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
during the ECT stimulus
Authors
Loading...
May support bifrontal ECT preference in arrhythmia-prone patients; leaves open confirmation via randomized trials.
Observational (n=114)
Does bifrontal or ultrabrief pulsewidth ECT reduce the risk of bradycardia and asystole compared to bitemporal or standard pulsewidth RUL ECT in patients undergoing ECT for severe depression?
p-value: p=<0.001
Bifrontal ECT and ultrabrief pulsewidth RUL ECT are associated with a lower risk of stimulus-induced bradycardia and asystole compared to bitemporal and standard RUL ECT, suggesting they may be safer for patients at risk of arrhythmias.
Stewart et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Severe depression (n=114). Bifrontal electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) vs. Bitemporal and right unilateral (RUL) ECT was evaluated on Degree of bradycardia and incidence of asystole during the ECT stimulus (p=<0.001). Bifrontal ECT resulted in less severe bradycardia (expected HR 78 vs 46 and 35 bpm; P<0.001) and lower asystole incidence than bitemporal and right unilateral ECT.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: