Etomidate versus propofol for electroconvulsive therapy: An intraindividual comparative study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic markedly influenced mental health care practices, notably regarding electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This was due to the redistribution of anesthetic agents used during ECT such as propofol, for intensive care units. Because in our center propofol was switched to etomidate to avoid ECT activity discontinuation, we undertook this study in order to compare Propofol and Etomidate regarding electroencephalographic seizure duration and stimulus intensity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective and comparative study, each patient being its own control. We included patients with at least two courses of ECT on propofol and two others with etomidate over the period from September 2019 to April 2021, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis. Our data collection process notably targeted stimulus intensity, seizure duration recorded using electroencephalography, and medication used for anesthetic induction. RESULTS: Overall, we included 18 patients with a male: female ratio of 1:2.6 and a mean (and standard deviation) age of 62.7±13.4 years. We found that the mean intensity of stimulation was significantly lower with etomidate when compared to propofol (425.3±250.0 vs. 658.9±280.2 mC, P=0.001). The mean duration of electroencephalographic seizure was significantly higher with etomidate in comparison to propofol (53.5±16.6 vs. 35.0±12.2seconds, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: By using each patient as its own control, our study found that etomidate, while compared to propofol, was related to a lower level of stimulatory intensity and a longer electroencephalographic seizure duration.