| Title |
Clinically favourable effects of ketamine as an anaesthetic for electroconvulsive therapy: a retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00406-011-0205-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Kranaster, Jutta Kammerer-Ciernioch, Carolin Hoyer, Alexander Sartorius |
| Abstract |
In a retrospective chart review, we examined the effects of ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) anaesthetic in patients suffering from therapy-resistant depression. We included 42 patients who received ECT treatment with either ketamine (n = 16) or the barbiturate thiopental (n = 26). We analysed the number of sessions until completion of ECT treatment (used as a surrogate parameter for outcome), psychopathology as assessed by pre- and post-ECT Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores as well as ECT and seizure parameters (stimulation dose, seizure duration and concordance, urapidil dosage for post-seizure blood pressure management). The ketamine group needed significantly fewer ECT sessions and had significantly lower HAM-D and higher MMSE scores afterwards. As expected, the ketamine group needed more urapidil for blood pressure control. Taking into account the limits inherent in a retrospective study design and the rather small sample size, our results nonetheless point towards synergistic effects of ECT and ketamine anaesthesia, less cognitive side effects and good tolerability of ketamine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Egypt | 1 | 20% |
| Denmark | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 15% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 34 | 24% |
| Unknown | 33 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 36% |
| Psychology | 15 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 41 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,527,838
of 24,466,750 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#208
of 1,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,556
of 112,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,466,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 112,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.