Continuation electroconvulsive therapy: preliminary guidelines and an illustrative case report

Electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure by the administration of an electrical stimulus via electrodes usually placed bilaterally on the scalp and was introduced as a treatment for schizophrenia in 1938. However, ECT is a controversial treatment with concerns about long-term side effects such a memory loss. Therefore, it is important to determine its clinical efficacy and safety for people with schizophrenia who are not responding to their treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of ECT for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Our secondary objectives were to determine whether ECT produces a differential response in people: who are treated with unilateral compared to bilateral ECT; who have had a long (more than 12 sessions) or a short course of ECT; who are given continuation or maintenance ECT; who are diagnosed with well-defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia as opposed to less rigorously defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia (who would be expected to have a greater affective component to their illness).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including clinical trial registries on 9 September 2015 and 4 August 2017. There were no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status for the inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of all the included records to identify further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of ECT in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between the groups and its 95% CIs. We employed the fixed-effect model for all analyses. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies involving 1285 participants (1264 completers with an average age of 18 to 46 years) with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We rated most studies (14/15, 93.3%) as at high risk of bias due to issues related to the blinding of participants and personnel. Our main outcomes of interest were: (i) clinically important response to treatment; (ii) clinically important change in cognitive functioning; (iii) leaving the study early; (iv) clinically important change in general mental state; (v) clinically important change in general functioning; (vi) number hospitalised; and (vii) death. No trial reported data on death.The included trials reported useable data for four comparisons: ECT plus standard care compared with sham-ECT added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with antipsychotic added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with standard care; and ECT alone compared with antipsychotic alone.For the comparison ECT plus standard care versus sham-ECT plus standard care, only average endpoint BPRS (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) scores from one study were available for mental state; no clear difference between groups was observed (short term; MD 3.60, 95% CI -3.69 to 10.89; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). One study reported data for service use, measured as number readmitted; there was a clear difference favouring the ECT group (short term; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with antipsychotics (clozapine) plus standard care, data from one study showed no clear difference for clinically important response to treatment (medium term; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.58; participants = 162; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in mental state data were not available, but average endpoint BPRS scores were reported. A positive effect for the ECT group was found (short-term BPRS; MD -5.20, 95% CI -7.93 to -2.47; participants = 162; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with standard care, more participants in the ECT group had a clinically important response (medium term; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.42; participants = 819; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence). Data on clinically important change in cognitive functioning were not available, but data for memory deterioration were reported. Results showed that adding ECT to standard care may increase the risk of memory deterioration (short term; RR 27.00, 95% CI 1.67 to 437.68; participants = 72; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups in satisfaction and acceptability of treatment, measured as leaving the study early (medium term; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.63; participants = 354; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state (BPRS) and general functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning). There were clear differences in scores, favouring ECT group for mental state (medium term; MD -11.18, 95% CI -12.61 to -9.76; participants = 345; studies = 2; low-quality evidence) and general functioning (medium term; MD 10.66, 95% CI 6.98 to 14.34; participants = 97; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).For the comparison ECT alone versus antipsychotics (flupenthixol) alone, only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state and general functioning. Mental state scores were similar between groups (medium-term BPRS; MD -0.93, 95% CI -6.95 to 5.09; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence); general functioning scores were also similar between groups (medium-term Global Assessment of Functioning; MD -0.66, 95% CI -3.60 to 2.28; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence indicates that relative to standard care, ECT has a positive effect on medium-term clinical response for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there is no clear and convincing advantage or disadvantage for adding ECT to standard care for other outcomes. The available evidence was also too weak to indicate whether adding ECT to standard care is superior or inferior to adding sham-ECT or other antipsychotics to standard care, and there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of ECT alone. More good-quality evidence is needed before firm conclusions can be made.

[Survey on anaesthetic practices for electroconvulsivotherapy in French university hospitals]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the anaesthetic management of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in French university hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

National survey in university hospitals by mail.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An email was sent to heads of department of anaesthesiology in French university hospitals to identify a referent practitioner, which we then sent a computerized quiz. The questions were about the volume and organization of the activity, pre-, per- and post-anaesthetic management of patients undergoing ECT.

RESULTS

Of the 33 sites performing ECT, 28 (85%) responded. The anaesthesia consultation was systematic at least 48 hours before the start of treatment but the preanaesthetic visit was performed in 32% of the centers. A routine electrocardiogram was performed in 89% of patients. In four centers (25%), neuromuscular blockade was not systematic. Propofol was the agent most widely used (82%) and etomidate and thiopental in 11% and 7% respectively. In two centers, practitioners did not report using oral protection. The psychiatrist was present in 71% of cases. The electroencephalogram was continuously recorded in 45% of the centers.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations remain valid while old and may be updated. They are not always followed by the teams. Continuing medical education should be promoted to a better understanding of the factors interfering between anesthesia and ECT.

Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure for therapeutic purposes by the administration of a variable frequency electrical stimulus shock via electrodes applied to the scalp. The effects of its use in people with schizophrenia are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) results in clinically meaningful benefit with regard to global improvement, hospitalisation, changes in mental state, behaviour and functioning for people with schizophrenia, and to determine whether variations in the practical administration of ECT influences outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1996), EMBASE (1980-1996), MEDLINE (1966-2004), PsycLIT (1974-1996),SCISEARCH (1996) and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2004). We also inspected the references of all identified studies and contacted relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled clinical trials that compared ECT with placebo, 'sham ECT', non-pharmacological interventions and antipsychotics and different schedules and methods of administration of ECT for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or chronic mental disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated. We presented scale data for only those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality. We also undertook tests for heterogeneity and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 trials with 50 reports. When ECT is compared with placebo or sham ECT, more people improved in the real ECT group (n=392, 10 RCTs, RR 0.76 random CI 0.59 to 0.98, NNT 6 CI 4 to 12) and though data were heterogeneous (chi-square 17.49 df=9 P=0.04), its impact on variability of data was not substantial (I-squared 48.5%). There was a suggestion that ECT resulted in less relapses in the short term than sham ECT (n=47, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 0.26 CI 0.03 to 2.2), and a greater likelihood of being discharged from hospital (n=98, 1 RCT, RR fixed 0.59, CI 0.34 to 1.01). There is no evidence that this early advantage for ECT is maintained over the medium to long term. People treated with ECT did not drop out of treatment earlier than those treated with sham ECT (n=495, 14 RCTs, RR fixed 0.71 CI 0.33 to 1.52, I-squared 0%). Very limited data indicated that visual memory might decline after ECT compared with sham ECT (n=24, 1 RCT, WMD -14.0 CI -23 to -5); the results of verbal memory tests were equivocal. When ECT is directly compared with antipsychotic drug treatments (total n=443, 10 RCTs) results favour the medication group (n=175, 3 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at the end of ECT course' 2.18 CI 1.31 to 3.63). Limited evidence suggests that ECT combined with antipsychotic drugs results in greater improvement in mental state (n= 40, 1 RCT, WMD, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale -3.9 CI - 2.28 to -5.52) than with antipsychotic drugs alone. One small study suggested more memory impairment after a course of ECT combined with antipsychotics than with antipsychotics alone (n=20, MD serial numbers and picture recall -4.90 CI -0.78 to -9.02), though this proved transient. When continuation ECT was added to antipsychotic drugs, the combination was superior to the use of antipsychotics alone (n=30, WMD Global Assessment of Functioning 19.06 CI 9.65 to 28.47), or CECT alone (n=30, WMD -20.30 CI -11.48 to -29.12). Unilateral and bilateral ECT were equally effective in terms of global improvement (n=78, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at end of course of ECT' 0.79 CI 0.45 to 1.39). One trial showed a significant advantage for 20 treatments over 12 treatments for numbers globally improved at the end of the ECT course (n=43, RR fixed 2.53 CI 1.13 to 5.66).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review suggests that ECT, combined with treatment with antipsychotic drugs, may be considered an option for people with schizophrenia, particularly when rapid global improvement and reduction of symptoms is desired. This is also the case for those with schizophrenia who show limited response to medication alone. Even though this initial beneficial effect may not last beyond the short term, there is no clear evidence to refute its use for people with schizophrenia. The research base for the use of ECT in people with schizophrenia continues to expand, but even after more than five decades of clinical use, there remain many unanswered questions regarding its role in the management of people with schizophrenia.

Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure (fit) for therapeutic purposes by the administration of a variable frequency electrical stimulus shock via electrodes applied to the scalp. The effects of its use in people with schizophrenia are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) results in clinically meaningful benefit with regard to global improvement, hospitalisation, changes in mental state, behaviour and functioning for people with schizophrenia, and whether variations in the practical administration of ECT influences outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1996), EMBASE (1980-1996), MEDLINE (1966-2001), PsycLIT (1974-1996),SCISEARCH (1996) and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2001) were undertaken. The references of all identified studies were also inspected and authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled clinical trials that compared ECT with placebo, 'sham ECT', non-pharmacological interventions and antipsychotics, and different schedules and methods of administration of ECT for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or chronic mental disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) were estimated, with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, the number needed to treat statistic (NNT) was calculated. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Normal continuous data was summated using the weighted mean difference (WMD). Scale data was presented for only those tools that had attained pre-specified levels of quality. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 24 trials with 46 reports. When ECT is compared with placebo or sham ECT, fewer people remain unimproved in the real ECT group (n=400, RR fixed 'not globally improved in the short term' 0.77 CI 0.6 to 0.9, chi-square 13.46 df=8 p=0.1). Removal of the one study with clearly heterogeneous results causes a change in the findings (n=380, 8 RCTs, RR fixed 0.83 CI 0.7 to 1.01), as does removal of a clinically heterogeneous trial (n=370, 8 RCTs, RR fixed 0.74 CI 0.6 to 0.9, chi-square 10.97 df=7 p=0.14). There was a suggestion that ECT resulted in less relapses than sham ECT (n=47, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 0.26 CI 0.03 to 2.2), and a greater likelihood of being discharged from hospital (n=98, 1 RCT, RR fixed 0.59, CI 0.34 to 1.01). There is no evidence that this early advantage for ECT is maintained over the medium to long term. People treated with ECT did not drop out of treatment earlier than those treated with sham ECT (n=495, 14 RCTs, RR fixed 0.71 CI 0.33 to 1.52). Very limited data indicated that visual memory might decline after ECT compared with sham ECT (n=24, 1 RCT, WMD -14.0 CI -23 to -5); the results of verbal memory tests were equivocal. When ECT is directly compared with antipsychotic drug treatment (total n=419, 8 RCTs), results favour the medication group (n=175, 3 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at the end of ECT course' 2.18 CI 1.3 to 3.6). One small study suggested more memory impairment after a course of ECT combined with antipsychotics than with antipsychotics alone (n=20, MD serial numbers and picture recall -4.90 CI -0. 8 to -9), though this proved transient. When continuation ECT was added to antipsychotic drugs, the combination was superior to the use of antipsychotics alone (n=30, WMD Global Assessment of Functioning 19.1 CI 9.7 to 28.5), or CECT alone (n=30, WMD -20.3 CI -11.5 to -29.1). Unilateral and bilateral ECT were equally effective in terms of global improvement (n=78, 2 RCTs, RR fixed 'not improved at end of course of ECT' 0.79 CI 0.5 to 1.4). One trial showed a significant advantage for 20 treatments over 12 treatments for numbers globally improved at the end of the ECT course (n=43, RR fixed 2.53 CI 1.1 to 5.7).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to clearly refute the use of ECT for people with schizophrenia. There is some limited evidence to support its use, particularly combined with antipsychotic drugs for those with schizophrenia who show limited response to medication alone. The research base for the use of ECT in people with schizophrenia is growing but, even after more than five decades of clinical use, is still inadequate.