Serum neuron-specific enolase levels do not increase after electroconvulsive therapy

Acute and chronic electroconvulsive shock in rats: Effects on peripheral markers of neuronal injury and glial activity

“…Another study measured only NSE serum levels. Samples were taken even more frequently than in the other studies, both during and after the course of ECT, and, consonantly with those works, no increases were found (Berrouschot et al, 1997).…”

S100 and Impact of ECT on Depression and Cognition

“…30,32,33 The hypothesis of an association between ECT and S100-beta, as an indicator of cerebral microstructural alterations, was investigated by Zachrisson et al 34 The authors reported that S100-beta levels were not significantly changed by ECT in patients with major depressive disorder, 34 nor did ECT influence neuron-specific enolase (NSE) levels, another sensitive marker for neuronal damage. 35 In agreement with these results, other research has demonstrated that tonicclonic epileptic seizures do not elevate S100-beta levels in patients. 36,37 Agelink et al 38 studied the effects of bilateral ECT on cognitive performance and levels of S100-beta and NSE in 14 patients with therapy-resistant major depression or Bschizodepressive^psychosis.…”

Serum markers of brain-cell damage and C-reactive protein are unaffected by electroconvulsive therapy

“…In other studies, serum levels of neuron-specific enolase Á a marker of neuronal cell damage in case of cerebral ischemia or neuroblastoma Á slightly and transiently increased in one of six patients, in two of 14 patients, and in none of seven patients (Dec et al 1985;Greffe et al 1996;Berrouschot et al 1997), and heart-type fatty acid-binding protein increased in two of 14 patients (Pelsers et al 2004). However, no changes in other protein markers for neuronal cell damage were found, such as myelin basic protein, S-100 protein, tau protein, neurofilament protein, or brain-type fatty acid-binding protein in serum or cerebrospinal fluid (Hoyle et al 1984;Zachrisson et al 2000;Agelink et al 2001;Pelsers et al 2004).…”