4.5 Article

Relapses and recurrences of catatonia: 30-case analysis and literature review

期刊

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 157-165

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.01.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan [CMRPG8D0571]
  2. [CMRPG840521]
  3. [CMRPG850491]
  4. [CMRPG8054]
  5. [CMRPG870951]
  6. [CMRPG870952]
  7. [CMRPG8C0831]
  8. [NMRPD190601]
  9. [NMRPG840551]
  10. [NMRPG850401]
  11. [NMRPG860231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Relieving catatonia helps identify the underlying etiology and its treatment. However, catatonia may reemerge after some time, but there are few data on the relapses and recurrences of catatonia. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients with relapses or recurrences of catatonia as well as the efficacy of the lorazepam-diazepam protocol on them. Methods: Patients with catatonia who had more than one episode of catatonia and were treated with the lorazepam-diazepam protocol were identified. Their medical charts were reviewed, and interview was conducted. Results: Thirty patients were identified. Nineteen (63.3%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia, five (16.7%) with major depressive disorder, two (6.7%) with bipolar disorder, and four (13.3%) with general medical conditions. In the 68 relapses and relapses the lorazepam-diazepam protocol was used, full response was reported in 54 (79.4%) of them. Twelve of 19 (63.2%) patients with schizophrenia were treated with clozapine. Twenty (66.7%) out of 30 patients were maintained on oral lorazepam by the time of discharge. Literature review showed similar prevalence of schizophrenia in patients with more than one episode of catatonia, and a wide variety of treatment options. Conclusion: The lorazepam-diazepam protocol was mostly effective in managing relapses and recurrences of catatonia. Maintenance clozapine and oral lorazepam were beneficial in a significant number of patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据