Scholarlink

Abstract <p>Modified electroconvulsive therapy is a highly effective treatment for various disorders. Its effectiveness depends both on stimulus parameters and anesthetic agent.</p> <p><b>Objectives</b> This study compared the effects of etomidate and propofol on seizure and recovery parameters during electroconvulsive therapy.</p> <p><b>Methods</b> We conducted a dual-phase study. Eighty-four patients undergoing mECT received both etomidate (<i>n</i> = 338) and propofol (<i>n</i> = 334) across different sessions during their acute treatment course (8–12 sessions).</p> <p><b>Results</b> Etomidate demonstrated significantly shorter seizure induction times (12.3 ± 3.1 vs. 15.7 ± 2.8&#xa0;s, <i>β</i> =  − 3.4, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and longer seizure durations (35.2 ± 9.9 vs. 16.6 ± 9.5&#xa0;s, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) compared to propofol. Adequate seizure rates were higher with etomidate (97.2% vs. 48.8%, <i>OR</i> = 77.3, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), despite requiring slightly higher mean charges (642 ± 306 vs. 559 ± 349 mC). Etomidate also showed superior first-attempt success (97.6% vs. 67.4%, <i>OR</i> = 22.7 for propofol failure) and fewer restimulations (4 vs. 44 sessions). However, etomidate has a significantly longer recovery time (10.79 ± 2.73&#xa0;min) as compared to propofol (8.67 ± 2.45&#xa0;min), with regression models confirming this difference after adjustment for covariates (<i>β</i> = 2.38&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> <p><b>Conclusions</b> Etomidate is significantly more effective with respect to seizure parameters than propofol in ECT. However, propofol yields faster recovery times.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Anesthetic choice matters: a retro-prospective analysis of propofol vs etomidate on seizure and recovery parameters in modified electroconvulsive therapy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月23日

查看全文
  • Neelofer Jan,
  • Iqra Arshad,
  • Arjuman Fayaz,
  • Rayees Najib,
  • Inaam ul-Haq,
  • Yasir Hassan Rather,
  • Altaf Ahmad Malla

摘要

Abstract

Modified electroconvulsive therapy is a highly effective treatment for various disorders. Its effectiveness depends both on stimulus parameters and anesthetic agent.

Objectives This study compared the effects of etomidate and propofol on seizure and recovery parameters during electroconvulsive therapy.

Methods We conducted a dual-phase study. Eighty-four patients undergoing mECT received both etomidate (n = 338) and propofol (n = 334) across different sessions during their acute treatment course (8–12 sessions).

Results Etomidate demonstrated significantly shorter seizure induction times (12.3 ± 3.1 vs. 15.7 ± 2.8 s, β =  − 3.4, p < 0.01) and longer seizure durations (35.2 ± 9.9 vs. 16.6 ± 9.5 s, p < 0.001) compared to propofol. Adequate seizure rates were higher with etomidate (97.2% vs. 48.8%, OR = 77.3, p < 0.001), despite requiring slightly higher mean charges (642 ± 306 vs. 559 ± 349 mC). Etomidate also showed superior first-attempt success (97.6% vs. 67.4%, OR = 22.7 for propofol failure) and fewer restimulations (4 vs. 44 sessions). However, etomidate has a significantly longer recovery time (10.79 ± 2.73 min) as compared to propofol (8.67 ± 2.45 min), with regression models confirming this difference after adjustment for covariates (β = 2.38 min, p < 0.05).

Conclusions Etomidate is significantly more effective with respect to seizure parameters than propofol in ECT. However, propofol yields faster recovery times.