ECT, rTMS, and deepTMS in pharmacoresistant drug-free patients with unipolar depression: a comparative review

Abstract

BackgroundBiological treatments are considered as additional options for the treatment of resistant unipolar depression. Controversial data exist about the efficacy and tolerability of three of the most used somatic treatments: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (deepTMS). The aim of this review is to investigate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of these three techniques in drug-free patients with pharmacoresistant unipolar depression.MethodsThree independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of methodological reporting of selected studies. The first outcome was the clinical response to the three different techniques defined as a percentage improvement of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). The second outcome was the evaluation of their neuropsychological effects. The third outcome was the evaluation of the number of remitted patients; remission was defined as an absolute HDRS-24 score of ≤11 or as an absolute HDRS-17 score of ≤8. Tolerability was the fourth outcome; it was evaluated by examining the number of dropped-out patients.ResultsThe comparative evaluation of HDRS percentage variations shows ECT as the most effective method after 4 weeks of therapy; on the other hand, a better efficacy is obtainable by deepTMS after 2 weeks of therapy. DeepTMS is the technique that gives the best improvement of cognitive performances. The percentage of remitted patients obtained with ECT treatment is the same obtained in the deepTMS group. Both techniques have a remitted patients percentage two times larger than the rTMS. DeepTMS shows a tolerability, measured by the number of dropped-out patients, worse than ECT.ConclusionOur investigation confirms the great therapeutic power of ECT. DeepTMS seems to be the only therapy that provides a substantial improvement of both depressive symptoms and cognitive performances; nevertheless it is characterized by a poor tolerability. rTMS seems to provide a better tolerability for patients, but its therapeutic efficacy is lower. Considering the small therapeutic efficacy of deepTMS in the last 2 weeks of treatment, it could be reasonable to shorten the standard period of deepTMS treatment from 4 to 2 weeks, expecting a reduction of dropped-out patients and thus optimizing the treatment outcome.

A Brain Centred View of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Tinnitus: From Otology to Hodology

“…Results from a large body of functional and structural brain imaging studies provide convergent evidence that DLPFC plays critical roles in mood regulation and DLPCF hypoactivity is nowadays considered a critical neural substrate for depression [ 128 ]. Impaired DLPFC functioning may thus represent a common neurobiological substrate of tinnitus symptomatology and depression, potentially explaining the high rate of comorbidity between the two disorders and the efficacy of prefrontal TMS in the treatment of both of the disorders [ 29 , 103 , 129 , 130 ]. Consistently with this view, Gray described PFC as a “candidate for the integration of sensory and emotional aspects of tinnitus” [ 131 ].…”

Neurostimulation as an intervention for treatment resistant depression: From research on mechanisms towards targeted neurocognitive strategies

“…A review comparing the efficacy and tolerability of deepTMS, rTMS and ECT in drug-free patients with pharmaco-resistant unipolar depression confirmed the superior efficacy of ECT as the most effective treatment option after 4 weeks of therapy. Deep TMS seems also to provide a substantial improvement of depressive symptoms but it is characterized by poorer tolerability, as witnessed by the highest dropout as compared to rTMS and ECT (Minichino et al, 2012).…”

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Maintain Treatment Response to Electroconvulsive Therapy in Depression: A Case Series

“…Though its efficacy may not be as robust as ECT, rTMS may have a similar mechanisms of action (24, 25), as it induces a micro-electrical current in the underlying cortical tissue and results in localized neuronal depolarization (26, 27). rTMS has the significant advantage of being able to electrically stimulate cortical tissue without the need for sedation.…”