4.2 Article

Magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic measurement of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in major depression before and after electroconvulsive therapy

期刊

ACTA NEUROPSYCHIATRICA
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 17-26

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2018.22

关键词

depression; electroconvulsive therapy; GABA; magnetic resonance spectroscopy

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Prior studies suggest that a dysregulation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is involved in the pathophysiology of major depression. We aimed to elucidate changes in cortical GABA content in relation to depression and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Methods In total, 11 patients with major depression or depressive episode of bipolar disorder (mean pre-ECT Ham-17 of 26) and 11 healthy subjects were recruited. GABA was quantified using short-TE MRS in prefrontal and occipital cortex. Other neurometabolites such as glutathione (GSH), N-acetylaspartate (NAA) and glutamate (Glu) were secondary outcome measures. Results No significant differences in GABA/Cr levels were observed between patients at baseline and healthy subjects in prefrontal cortex, t(20)=0.089, p=0.93 or occipital cortex t(21)=0.37, p=0.72. All patients improved on Ham-17 (mean post-ECT Ham-17 of 9). No significant difference was found in GABA, Glu, glutamine, choline or GSH between pre- and post-ECT values. However, we observed a significant decrease in NAA levels following ECT t(22)=3.89, p=0.0038, and a significant correlation between the NAA decline and the number of ECT sessions p=0.035. Conclusions Our study does not support prior studies arguing for GABA as a key factor in the treatment effect of ECT on major depression. The reduction in NAA levels following ECT could be due to neuronal loss or a transient dysfunction in prefrontal cortex. As no long-term follow-up scan was performed, it is unknown whether NAA levels will normalise over time.

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

4.2
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