4.7 Article

Electroconvulsive therapy in depressive illness that has not responded to drug treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 83, 期 2-3, 页码 121-126

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.05.006

关键词

drug adequacy; medication resistance; ECT; clinical response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Antidepressant medication resistance is the commonest indication for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in Scotland. Evidence from the USA suggests that clinical response is reduced for medication resistant patients. The aim of the present study was to establish if the American results were generalisable to routine clinical practice in Edinburgh. Method: Fifty eligible depressed patients consecutively referred for a new course of bilateral ECT at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital were prospectively assessed as part of the National Audit of ECT in Scotland. The patients were categorised into those who had received. adequate drug treatment pre-ECT (and could therefore be classed as medication resistant) and those who had not, using five operational definitions. The, clinical response of the ECT was then compared between groups, using the Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). Results: Patients defined as medication resistant had an identical response to patients who were not defined as medication resistant (in both groups 60% met the predetermined criterion for clinical response), and this was consistent across the five operational definitions. Conclusions: The hypothesis that medication resistance is associated with a reduced probability of clinical response to ECT was not supported. Limitations: Some patients who were inadequately drug treated might have proven eventually to be medication resistant, which would have obscured a potential difference in clinical response. It is not known how generalisable the results are to clinical practice in the rest of the UK. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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