Skip to main content
Full access
Editorial
Published Online: 1 January 1998

ECT, Research, and Professional Ambivalence

Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Modern psychiatry is becoming a data-based scientific discipline. As in other branches of medicine, diagnoses stem from increasingly rigorously defined criteria, and treatment recommendations are based on the results of controlled clinical trials. The days of “impressionistic,” seat-of-the-pants formulations and treatments are rapidly disappearing.
Among psychiatric treatments, data for the efficacy of ECT, especially for the most severely depressed patients, are incontrovertible. Meta-analyses of ECT trials versus placebo, tricyclic or monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, or sham ECT convincingly demonstrate the efficacy of ECT (1). Use of modern anesthetic and ECT administration techniques has all but eliminated serious side effects. In addition, Olfson et al., in this issue of the Journal, have confirmed that ECT may lead to shorter and less costly inpatient care.
Given this demonstrated efficacy, safety, and economic savings, one would assume that the use of ECT would be more uniform throughout the United States. Hermann et al. (2), however, have demonstrated that use of ECT varies widely and depends on geographic location, with some areas of the United States hardly administering the treatment at all! It is likely that psychiatric residents in some residency training programs may never even see an ECT treatment, let alone administer a treatment and witness its efficacy.
If our psychiatric treatments are, indeed, based on the results of research, how, then, are we to account for the wide variability in ECT treatment in the United States? Despite the data, it appears that there continues to be ambivalence among American psychiatrists toward this efficacious and safe treatment. One reason may lie in its history of unmodified administration and the resultant side effects. Certainly films such as Shock Corridor, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Frances cannot have helped its reputation. However, there may be another more central reason for this ambivalence. With a few notable exceptions, there is little ECT research being conducted in major American psychiatric centers compared with research on pharmacological treatments. Many of the efficacy studies are one or more decades old. Rigorously designed multisite collaborative studies, using modern research techniques, of ECT's efficacy and predictors and correlates of response, relapse, and maintenance do not exist.
It appears that ECT has failed to attract current scientific curiosity. Despite a journal devoted exclusively to convulsive therapy, and a society of dedicated researchers and clinicians, there has not been the same systematic accretion of clinical research into ECT's mechanisms and efficacy as there has been for antidepressants. Examination of articles published in the past 3 years in The American Journal of Psychiatry, for example, reveals not a single controlled study of efficacy or mechanisms of action. Without such studies, there cannot be adequate comparison among modern psychiatric treatments, nor can knowledge increase regarding pathogenesis of psychiatric illness, as well as its treatment.
What is to be done? We lack comparisons of ECT's efficacy with adequately dosed trials of new antidepressants for all categories of depression, especially for our sickest patients. We need carefully collected data on the therapeutic impact of ECT for the suicidally depressed patient, both acutely and after treatment. Direct comparisons of long-term outcome, cost, and safety of ECT with pharmacological treatment are essential. In an effort to understand its therapeutic mechanisms, new research strategies such as imaging studies conducted before, during, and after ECT in depressed patients of all ages should be performed. Using modern molecular biology techniques, we need inquiry into acute and chronic effects of ECT on basic mechanisms of synaptic and second messenger function, neuronal adaptation, long-term plasticity, and hormonal response.
There is much fascinating research to conduct, if we can only overcome a professional ambivalence toward ECT and ignite the imagination and enthusiasm of our trainees and young research colleagues. Let us not perpetuate outmoded, nonscientific, and incorrect attitudes toward ECT in our younger colleagues. Rather, let us stimulate scientific curiosity and research into this cost-effective and safe psychiatric treatment.

Footnote

Address reprint requests to Dr. Salzman, Consolidated Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, 74 Fenwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115.

References

1.
Janicak PG, Davis JM, Preskorn SH, Ayd FJ Jr: Principles and Practice of Psychopharmacotherapy, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1997, pp 373–374
2.
Hermann RC, Dorwart RA, Hoover CW, Brody J: Variation in ECT use in the United States. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:869–875

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 1 - 2
PubMed: 9433330

History

Published online: 1 January 1998
Published in print: January 1998

Authors

Details

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share