4.5 Review

Electroconvulsive therapy increases brain volume in major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 138, Issue 3, Pages 180-195

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12884

Keywords

electroconvulsive therapy; magnetic resonance imaging; diffusion tensor imaging; depressive disorder; major

Categories

Funding

  1. Lundbeck Fonden
  2. Beckett-fonden
  3. Axel Muusfeldts fond
  4. Ivan Nielsens fond
  5. Augustinus fonden
  6. Psykiatrisk Forskningsfond af 1967
  7. Laege Gerhard Legat
  8. Fonden til Laegevidenskabens Fremme
  9. Helsefonden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThe main purpose of this review was to synthesise evidence on ECT's effects on brain's structure. MethodA systematic literature review of longitudinal studies of depressed patients treated with ECT using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and meta-analysis of ECT's effect on hippocampal volume. ResultsThirty-two studies with 467 patients and 285 controls were included. The MRI studies did not find any evidence of ECT-related brain damage. All but one of the newer MRI volumetric studies found ECT-induced volume increases in certain brain areas, most consistently in hippocampus. Meta-analysis of effect of ECT on hippocampal volume yielded pooled effect size: g = 0.39 (95% CI = 0.18-0.61) for the right hippocampus and g = 0.31 (95% CI = 0.09-0.53) for the left. The DTI studies point to an ECT-induced increase in the integrity of white matter pathways in the frontal and temporal lobes. The results of correlations between volume increases and treatment efficacy were inconsistent. ConclusionThe MRI studies do not support the hypothesis that ECT causes brain damage; on the contrary, the treatment induces volume increases in fronto-limbic areas. Further studies should explore the relationship between these increases and treatment effect and cognitive side effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available