4.7 Article

Differential effects of high-dose magnetic seizure therapy and electroconvulsive shock on cognitive function

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 63, 期 12, 页码 1163-1170

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.11.024

关键词

cognitive; ECT; impairment; magnetic; seizure; TMS

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH060884-09, R01 MH060884, R01 MH60884] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is under investigation as an alternative form of convulsive therapy that induces more focal seizures and spares cortical regions involved in memory. With a newly expanded version of the Columbia University Primate Cognitive Profile, we compared the cognitive effects of high-dose MST delivered at 100 Hz (6 x seizure threshold) with electroconvulsive shock (ECS) delivered at 2.5 x seizure threshold. Methods: Daily high-dose MST, ECS, and sham (anesthesia-only) were administered for 4 weeks each in a within-subject crossover design. Rhesus macaques (n = 3) were trained on five cognitive tasks assessing automatic memory, anterograde learning and memory, combined anterograde and retrograde simultaneous chaining, and spatial and serial working memory. Acutely after each intervention, monkeys were tested on the cognitive battery twice daily, separated by a 3-hour retention interval. Results: Subjects were slower to complete criterion tasks (p values <.0001) after ECS, compared with sham and high-dose MST. Moreover, time to task-completion after high-dose MST did not differ from sham. Of six measures of accuracy, treatment effects' were found in four; in all of these, ECS but not MST fared worse than sham. On all accuracy and time to completion measurements, subjects performed as well after high-dose MST as subjects from a previous study on moderate-dose MST. Conclusions: These findings provide evidence that high-dose MST results in benign acute cognitive side-effect profile relative to ECS and are in line with our previous studies.

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