Ultrabrief (0.3 ms) or brief (0.5 ms) pulses for right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy: is there a difference in seizure thresholds?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the minimum charge to elicit a seizure using 2 different pulse widths, the brief pulse (0.5 milliseconds [ms]) and the ultrabrief pulse (0.3 ms). METHODS: We compared retrospectively the last 30 patients in our ECT unit whose seizure thresholds were titrated using a pulse width of 0.5 ms to the last 30 patients whose seizure thresholds were titrated using a pulse width of 0.3 ms. The former were regular clinical patients, and the latter were participating in a clinical trial on the use of ultrabrief pulse treatment. All titrations were performed with right unilateral electrode positioning. Most patients continued to use psychotropic medications. RESULTS: Initial seizure threshold (as measured in millicoulombs [mC]) for the brief pulse group (0.5 ms) was 16 (n = 1); 32 (n = 21), and 64 (n = 8); whereas for the ultrabrief pulse group (0.3 ms), it was 9.2 (n = 3), 38.4 (n = 21), 19.2 (n = 3), 76.8 (n = 2), and 307.2 (n = 1). Excluding the outlier, there was no statistical difference between mean seizure thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: If we exclude the outlier from the ultrabrief group (seizure threshold [ST], 307 mC), we can observe that most of the patients in both groups had an ST between 30 and 40 mC. No patient in the brief pulse group showed a lower ST than 16 mC, probably because this was the first step of titration for this group. The data suggest that the difference between 0.3 and 0.5 ms may not be big, although randomized prospective studies with a more precise and similar steps used for titration are needed. Clinical efficacy was not compared in the present study.

Recovery after ECT: comparison of propofol, etomidate and thiopental.

OBJECTIVES: To compare post anesthetic time for patient recovery after electroconvulsive therapy, as measured by the post anesthetic Recovery Score of Aldrete and Kroulik, using three different types of hypnotic drugs (propofol, etomidate and thiopental). METHOD: Thirty patients were randomized to receive one of the three drugs (n = 10 in each group), during a course of electroconvulsive therapy treatment. Patients and raters were blinded to which drug was received. Main treatment characteristics were recorded (as total electric charge received seizure threshold, number of treatments, and the mean time for recovery) along the whole treatment. RESULTS: Thiopental and propofol were associated with a significance increase in charge needed to induce a seizure (p < 0.0001) when compared to etomidate, as well as a significant decrease of time for recovery (p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, although there seems to be no difference in the clinical outcome across these three drugs, propofol offers the best recovery profile. However, it makes a higher mean electric charge necessary.

Recovery after ECT: comparison of propofol, etomidate and thiopental / Recuperação pós-eletroconvulsoterapia: comparação entre propofol, etomidato e tiopental

OBJECTIVES: To compare post anesthetic time for patient recovery after electroconvulsive therapy, as measured by the post anesthetic Recovery Score of Aldrete and Kroulik, using three different types of hypnotic drugs (propofol, etomidate and thiopental). METHOD: Thirty patients were randomized to receive one of the three drugs (n = 10 in each group), during a course of electroconvulsive therapy treatment. Patients and raters were blinded to which drug was received. Main treatment characteristics were recorded (as total electric charge received seizure threshold, number of treatments, and the mean time for recovery) along the whole treatment. RESULTS: Thiopental and propofol were associated with a significance increase in charge needed to induce a seizure (p < 0.0001) when compared to etomidate, as well as a significant decrease of time for recovery (p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, although there seems to be no difference in the clinical outcome across these three drugs, propofol offers the best recovery profile. However, it makes a higher mean electric charge necessary.

OBJETIVOS: Comparar o tempo de recuperação dos pacientes após eletroconvulsoterapia avaliada com a escala de recuperação pós-anestésica de Aldrete e Kroulik, utilizando três tipos de medicações anestésicas (propofol, etomidato and tiopental). MÉTODO: Trinta pacientes foram randomizados para receber uma das medicações (n = 10 em cada grupo) durante uma série de tratamentos com eletroconvulsoterapia. Os pacientes e o examinador ficaram cegos para o tipo de anestésico utilizado. As principais características do tratamento foram avaliadas (como carga total de eletricidade recebida, limiar convulsivo, número de sessões e o tempo médio para recuperação) ao longo de toda a série de tratamentos. RESULTADOS: Tiopental e propofol se associaram a um aumento significativo na carga elétrica total utilizada (p < 0,0001) quando comparados com etomidato, bem como uma diminuição significativa no tempo de recuperação pós-anestésica (p = 0,042). CONCLUSÕES: Estes achados sugerem que, apesar de não haver diferença na evolução clínica entre os três grupos estudados, a droga propofol oferece o melhor perfil de recuperação apesar de requerer uma carga elétrica média maior.