4.3 Article

Ketamine-based anesthesia improves electroconvulsive therapy outcomes: a randomized-controlled study

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-018-1088-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Schulman Research Award (University of Saskatchewan)
  2. Royal University Hospital Foundation (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and debilitating condition that can be challenging to treat. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is currently the therapeutic gold standard for treatment-resistant MDD. We tested our hypothesis that ketamine-based anesthesia for ECT results in superior improvement in treatment-resistant MDD outcomes compared with propofol-based anesthesia. Patients with treatment-resistant MDD were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial with assignment to ketamine- or propofol-based anesthesia arms. Using a modified intention-to-treat analysis, we compared the median number of ECT treatments required to achieve a 50% reduction (primary outcome) and a score >= 10 (secondary outcome) on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) between anesthesia groups. The study was terminated as significant results were found after the first planned interim analysis with 12 patients in each of the ketamine (intervention) and propofol (control) groups. All ketamine patients achieved at least a 50% MADRS reduction after a median of two ECT treatments whereas ten propofol patients (83%) achieved the same outcome after a median of four ECT treatments. All ketamine patients and seven propofol patients (58%) achieved MDD remission (MADRS >= 10). Log rank tests showed that both time-to-50% reduction and remission differed significantly between groups. Adverse events and recovery time were similar between groups. In this early-terminated small-sized study, ketamine-based anesthesia compared with propofol-based anesthesia provided response and remission after fewer ECT sessions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available