In an era that has seen ECT being opposed for political not clinical reasons, it was heartening to see an article on ECT addressing the very important issue of mortality. The study of Munk-Olsen et al (Reference Munk-Olsen, Laursen and Videbech2007) is based on the Danish registry system which is acclaimed for its reliability, but certain issues need further clarification. It would have been relevant to know the total number of patients who received ECT and the total number of ECT treatments received by patients over the study period. Furthermore, the results could be better understood if information regarding physical comorbidity and the age of patients at the time of ECT had been provided. These variables can have a strong influence on mortality rates. In addition, as the study included only in-patients it is likely that the sample included patients who were severely ill. Also, the results show that inclusion of ‘days since last ECT treatment’ in the analysis causes the relative risk of mortality from natural causes of patients ‘discharged within the past 8–30 days’ to rise.

The relative risk of mortality from natural causes is also highest within 7 days of last ECT (RR=2.11), which is similar to the trend seen in deaths due to unnatural causes, especially suicide. Both these figures go against the conclusion of the authors that the mortality from natural causes is lower with ECT. It must also be noted that the relative risk of dying by suicide after ECT is 1.20, which is not significant but which the authors refer to as ‘a marginally significant trend’, and ‘significantly increased suicide rate’. The finding that the risk from suicide is highest in the first 7 days after discharge and ECT is based on a small sample (n=6). Although the authors concede that admission status and time since discharge are important confounders in the analysis of suicide in patients with affective disorders, the statistical analysis does not consider these factors when calculating the relative risk of suicide after ECT. The authors discuss in some length the lack of a selection bias of patients with poor physical health. However, it is likely that patients with very poor physical health are not given ECT and this introduces a selection bias. Also, given the bias that occurs as patients at high risk for suicide are given ECT preferentially, this calls into question the validity of the conclusions. Further, it would have been very useful if the authors could have compared the death rates with those in the general population. This study provides several good research questions which need to be pursued further.