Randomised comparison of bifrontal and unilateral ultrabrief pulse electroconvulsive therapy in major depression

ISRCTN ISRCTN56570426
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN56570426
Secondary identifying numbers 3M050570
Submission date
11/04/2008
Registration date
09/05/2008
Last edited
30/06/2009
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Mental and Behavioural Disorders
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Study website

Contact information

Dr Pascal Sienaert
Scientific

Leuvensesteenweg 517
Kortenberg
3070
Belgium

Email pascal.sienaert@uc-kortenberg.be

Study information

Study designRandomised controlled trial.
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Scientific title
Study acronymBFRUL
Study objectives1. Ultrabrief bifrontal electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is as effective as ultrabrief unilateral ECT
2. Ultrabrief bifrontal ECT produces less cognitive side-effects than ultrabrief unilateral ECT
Ethics approval(s)Ethics Committee of the Catholic University of Leuven. Date of approval: 11/09/2003 (ref: ML2393)
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedDepressive disorder/ bipolar disorder
InterventionUltrabrief bifrontal ECT vs ultrabrief unilateral ECT. Patients were treated twice weekly until remission and had a mean number of treatment sessions of 11.

Ultrabrief pulse ECT = pulse width of 0.3 msec.
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureThe following were performed at baseline and once every week until response/remission, and 1 and 6 weeks after finishing the course, by a blinded rater:
1. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS)
2. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
3. Clinical Global Impression (CGI)
4. Patient Global Impression (PGI)
Secondary outcome measuresThe following were assessed at baseline and 1 and 6 weeks after finishing the course:
1. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)
2. Trail Making Test A&B
3. Continuous Performance Task (CPT)
4. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)
5. Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT)
6. Letter Number Sequencing (WAIS)
7. Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT)
8. Autobiographical Memory Interview (AMI)
9. Squire Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SSMQ)
Overall study start date01/10/2003
Completion date01/10/2007

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
SexBoth
Target number of participants60
Key inclusion criteria1. Aged 18 years or older
2. Patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV)-defined major depressive disorder, either bipolar or unipolar, with or without psychotic symptoms
3. Those who were referred for ECT
4. Those who had a minimum baseline score of 18 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD)
5. Written informed consent
Key exclusion criteria1. Schizophrenia
2. Neurological illness
3. Cognitive disorder
4. Substance abuse or dependence within the previous year
5. ECT within the past 6 months
Date of first enrolment01/10/2003
Date of final enrolment01/10/2007

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Belgium

Study participating centre

Leuvensesteenweg 517
Kortenberg
3070
Belgium

Sponsor information

Catholic University Leuven (Belgium)
University/education

University Psychiatric Centre
Kortenberg campus
Leuvensesteenweg 517
Kortenberg
3070
Belgium

Phone +32 2 758 05 11
Email pascal.sienaert@gmail.com
Website http://www.kuleuven.be/english
ROR logo "ROR" https://ror.org/05f950310

Funders

Funder type

University/education

Catholic University Leuven, University Psychiatric Centre (Belgium)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/07/2009 Yes No
Results article patient satisfaction results 01/03/2010 Yes No