Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:41:59.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

432 - Ultrabrief Right Unilateral ECT in Older Adults with Catatonia: A Case Series and Literature Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2021

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

Comparing Ultra-brief (UB) Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy (RU ECT) to the existing literature, this case series highlights the use of the treatment with geriatric patients.

Methods:

This is a retrospective chart review of 5 patients with catatonia who were successfully treated with UB RUL ECT. Medical records were reviewed for clinical data and ECT treatment. The existing literature is compared and contrasted with other published cases. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) was completed both pre-ECT and post-ECT. Clinical Global Impression–Improvement (CGI-I) scale was performed post-ECT. Response was defined as decrease of QIDS by 50% and remission was defined as QIDS ≤5. CGI response was defined as CGI-I ≤2.

Results:

All patients received UB RUL ECT treatment (mean age 67, 100% female). 20% (n=2) were caucasian. 60% had mood disorders and 40% had psychotic disorders. Number of treatments in the acute treatment course ranged from 5 to 20, charge was dosed at 6-10 times the seizure threshold determined at first treatment. All patients had a significant clinical response to ECT as reflected by clinical data, ECT procedure notes, and rating scales when available. All patients completed post ECT CGI-I. Response rate was 60% (n = 3). We also assessed QIDS scores for patients with comorbid depression. Out of these patients, 40% (n = 2) were unable to complete baseline QIDS secondary to symptoms severity. Mean baseline QIDS for the remaining patients was 9.67 (SD 1.53). Post-treatment QIDS was 3.67 (SD 5.51). Paired-samples t-test comparing these scores at baseline and post-ECT demonstrated a significance P value of 0.14. None of the patients experienced worsening of cognitive function.

Conclusions:

UB RUL ECT is a safe and effective treatment for Catatonia. Our data demonstrate clinical improvement in patients with Catatonia with UB RUL ECT. In addition, this method may lower the burden of cognitive effects that can significantly benefit the older adult population. The literature is limited regarding the use of Ultra-brief (<0.37 milisec) Right Unilateral (RU) ECT in Catatonia. Additional studies will benefit from the inclusion of objective metrics such as Bush Francis Catatonia Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Psychotic Symptoms (SAPS), and the systematic evaluation of cognitive status and function.

Type
OnDemand Free/Oral Communications
Copyright
© International Psychogeriatric Association 2021