Transcutaneous electrical cranial-auricular acupoint stimulation versus escitalopram for mild-to-moderate depression: An assessor-blinded, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

AIM: Transcutaneous electrical cranial-auricular acupoint stimulation (TECAS) is a novel non-invasive therapy that stimulates acupoints innervated by the trigeminal and auricular vagus nerves. An assessor-blinded, randomized, non-inferiority trial was designed to compare the efficacy of TECAS and escitalopram in mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder. METHODS: 468 participants received two TECAS sessions per day at home (n = 233) or approximately 10-13 mg/day escitalopram (n = 235) for 8 weeks plus 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome was clinical response, defined as a baseline-to-endpoint ≥50% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, changes in the severity of depression, anxiety, sleep and life quality. RESULTS: The response rate was 66.4% on TECAS and 63.2% on escitalopram with a 3.2% difference (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.9% to 12.9%) in intention-to-treat analysis, and 68.5% versus 66.2% with a 2.3% difference (95% CI, -6.9% to 11.4%) in per-protocol analysis. The lower limit of 95% CI of the differences fell within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10% (P ≤ 0.004 for non-inferiority). Most secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups. TECAS-treated participants who experienced psychological trauma displayed a markedly greater response than those without traumatic experience (81.3% vs 62.1%, P = 0.013). TECAS caused much fewer adverse events than escitalopram. CONCLUSIONS: TECAS was comparable to escitalopram in improving depression and related symptoms, with high acceptability, better safety profile, and particular efficacy in reducing trauma-associated depression. It could serve an effective portable therapy for mild-to-moderate depression.

Extracranial/Intracranial Vascular Bypass in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer - Related Carotid Blowout Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate the endovascular intervention or extracranial/intracranial (EC/IC) vascular bypass in the management of patients with head and neck cancer-related carotid blowout syndrome (CBS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical data of patients with head and neck cancer-related CBS treated by endovascular intervention and/or EC/IC vascular bypass, analysis of its bleeding control, neurological complications, and survival results. RESULTS: Thrity-seven patients were included. Twenty-five were associated with external carotid artery (ECA); twelve were associated with internal or common carotid artery (ICA/CCA). All patients with ECA hemorrhage were treated with endovascular embolization. Of the 12 patients with ICA/CCA hemorrhage, 9 underwent EC/IC bypass, 1 underwent endovascular embolization, and 3 underwent endovascular stenting. For patients with ECA-related CBS, the median survival was 6 months, and the 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were 67.1%, 44.7%, and 33.6%, respectively; the estimated rebleeding risk at 1-month, 6-month, and 2-year was 7.1%, 20.0%, and 31.6%, respectively. For patients with ICA/CCA-related CBS, the median survival was 22.5 months, and the 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were 92.3%, 71.8%, and 41.0%, respectively; the estimated rebleeding risk at 1 month, 6 months, and 2 years is 7.7%,15.4%, and 15.4%, respectively. ICA/CCA-related CBS patients have significantly longer survival time and lower risk of rebleeding, which may be related to the more use of EC/IC vascular bypass as a definite treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with ICA/CCA-related CBS, if there is more stable hemodynamics, longer expected survival, EC/IC vascular bypass is preferred. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:1548-1556, 2021.