Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:04:53.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive side-effects of electroconvulsive therapy: what are they, how to monitor them and what to tell patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

Richard J. Porter Open the ORCID record for Richard J. Porter [Opens in a new window] ,
Bernhard T. Baune ,
Grace Morris Open the ORCID record for Grace Morris [Opens in a new window] ,
Amber Hamilton ,
Darryl Bassett ,
Philip Boyce ,
Malcolm J. Hopwood ,
Roger Mulder ,
Gordon Parker  and
Ajeet B. Singh
...Show all authors
Richard J. Porter
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago – Christchurch, New Zealand
Bernhard T. Baune
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Australia
Grace Morris
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; Academic Department of Psychiatry, Northern Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; and CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Australia
Amber Hamilton
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; Academic Department of Psychiatry, Northern Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; and CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Australia
Darryl Bassett
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Private Practice in Psychiatry and Division of Psychiatry, the University of Western Australia, Australia
Philip Boyce
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Discipline of Psychiatry, Sydney Medical School, Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Australia
Malcolm J. Hopwood
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Australia
Roger Mulder
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago – Christchurch, New Zealand
Gordon Parker
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales; andBlack Dog Institute, Australia
Ajeet B. Singh
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; and School of Medicine, IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, Deakin University, Australia
Tim Outhred
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; Academic Department of Psychiatry, Northern Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; and CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Australia
Pritha Das
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; Academic Department of Psychiatry, Northern Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; and CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Australia
Gin S. Malhi*
Affiliation:
Treatment Algorithm Group; Academic Department of Psychiatry, Northern Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Medical School Northern, University of Sydney; and CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Australia
*
Correspondence: Gin S. Malhi. Email: gin.malhi@sydney.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is recommended in treatment guidelines as an efficacious therapy for treatment-resistant depression. However, it has been associated with loss of autobiographical memory and short-term reduction in new learning.

Aims

To provide clinically useful guidelines to aid clinicians in informing patients regarding the cognitive side-effects of ECT and in monitoring these during a course of ECT, using complex data.

Method

A Committee of clinical and academic experts from Australia and New Zealand met to the discuss the key issues pertaining to ECT and cognitive side-effects. Evidence regarding cognitive side-effects was reviewed, as was the limited evidence regarding how to monitor them. Both issues were supplemented by the clinical experience of the authors.

Results

Meta-analyses suggest that new learning is impaired immediately following ECT but that group mean scores return at least to baseline by 14 days after ECT. Other cognitive functions are generally unaffected. However, the finding of a mean score that is not reduced from baseline cannot be taken to indicate that impairment, particularly of new learning, cannot occur in individuals, particularly those who are at greater risk. Therefore, monitoring is still important. Evidence suggests that ECT does cause deficits in autobiographical memory. The evidence for schedules of testing to monitor cognitive side-effects is currently limited. We therefore make practical recommendations based on clinical experience.

Conclusions

Despite modern ECT techniques, cognitive side-effects remain an important issue, although their nature and degree remains to be clarified fully. In these circumstances it is useful for clinicians to have guidance regarding what to tell patients and how to monitor these side-effects clinically.

Keywords

Depressioncognitionelectroconvulsive therapyneuropsychological testsmemory disorders
Type
Review
Information
BJPsych Open , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , e40
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020

Despite considerable advances in the practice of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the benefits of this treatment remain a balance between effectiveness and the risk of cognitive side-effects.Reference Loo1 It is therefore important for clinicians not only to understand the clinical indications and likely clinical benefits of ECT, but also to have a clear understanding of the cognitive side-effects. However, the complexities of research evidence, different ECT techniques and differing cognitive tests and functions, make it increasingly difficult for busy clinicians to understand the latest evidence. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to assist clinicians by briefly discussing the evidence regarding the cognitive side-effects of ECT. We then consider whether screening of cognition during ECT can be developed in order to detect problems at an early stage and how this might be done. Finally, based on the current evidence, the paper outlines what information clinicians should present to patients regarding the potential cognitive side-effects of ECT. The issue of cognitive side-effects of ECT is illustrated using the example of treatment of major depressive episodes (MDEs), although similar issues probably apply to other diagnostic groups.

Method

A Committee of clinical and academic experts from Australia and New Zealand met to the discuss the key issues pertaining to ECT and cognitive side-effects. Evidence regarding cognitive side-effects was reviewed, as was the limited evidence regarding how to monitor them. Both issues were supplemented by the clinical experience of the authors.

Results

What are the cognitive side-effects of ECT?

Several important factors determine the risk of cognitive side-effects of ECT. These can be divided into the following, all of which interact to determine risk.

  1. (a) The domain of cognitive function that is being considered.

  2. (b) ECT treatment parameters – electrode placement, dose of electricity, pulse width, treatment frequency, number of treatments.

  3. (c) Individual patient factors.

What domains of cognitive function are affected?

The meta-analyses of Semkovska and colleaguesReference Semkovska and McLoughlin2,Reference Semkovska, Keane, Babalola and McLoughlin3 examined pooled data from existing studies. These divided functioning into separate cognitive domains and examined subacute (0–3 days), short-term (4 days–14 days) and long-term (14 days–2 years) effects. Though these meta-analyses have provided the most comprehensive overview to date, the results are complex and differences between the effects on different cognitive tasks may relate to properties of the tasks being employed rather than being a function of the sensitivity of that domain of cognitive function to disruption by ECT per se. It is also important to recognise that cognitive tasks inevitably rely on a range of functions and that it is difficult to separate these out. For example, memory tests inevitably also load on executive and attentional function whereas tests of attention load on executive function and vice versa. A simplified summary of the data is given below.

Non-memory cognition

In the subacute period following ECT (0–3 days), tests of executive function and processing speed were impaired compared with baseline. However, tests of attention were not impaired at this time point.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2 When measured between 4 and 14 days most tests had improved significantly compared with baseline and none were significantly below baseline. The improvement is likely to have been a result of successful treatment of the depressive illness as studies suggest that in very severe depression, a high percentage of patients have very significant cognitive impairment.Reference Reppermund, Zihl, Lucae, Horstmann, Kloiber and Holsboer4–Reference Douglas, Gallagher, Robinson, Carter, McIntosh and Frampton6

Longer term, with a wide range of follow-up intervals (2 weeks to 2 years), there was no evidence of impairment in tests of non-memory cognition.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2 The only caveat to this may involve the use of sine wave ECT machines (discussed below).

Anterograde memory

Individual studies show that there was impairment on tests of anterograde memory from early in a course of ECTReference Porter, Heenan and Reeves7 and meta-analyses suggest that this was still impaired subacutely (0–3 days) but returned to baseline (once again a baseline that may have been adversely affected by depression) between 4 and 14 days after the end of the course of ECT.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2 The degree of initial impairment depends on treatment and patient factors considered below. Once again, the data refers to mean values and compares performance with a baseline, which is likely to be reduced secondary to the cognitive effects of severe depression itself.Reference Douglas, Porter, Knight and Maruff5

Beyond 14 days, there was no evidence of objectively assessed impairment.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2

A caveat, which applies to all domains of cognitive function, is that although studies reporting the results of objective cognitive tests present mean results, the finding of no mean change from baseline does not necessarily mean that no patients experienced a clinically significant reduction in function. If, for instance, some patients improve greatly from baseline, a lack of mean change implies that some patients deteriorate. This is important to bear in mind when explaining risk on a case by case basis in clinical practice. Studies have rarely provided analysis on an individual level. We recommend that future studies provide this type of analysis in order for clinicians to be able to give information to patients regarding the percentage risk of significant decline.

Retrograde memory

When patients report cognitive side-effects it is often loss of autobiographical memory (i.e. loss of memory for events that the person has experienced) that are reported.Reference Rose, Wykes, Leese, Bindman and Fleischmann8 However, both episodic memory (memory for experiences) and semantic memory (memory for facts) are affected. Retrograde amnesia for non-personal information has also been reported.Reference Lisanby, Maddox, Prudic, Devanand and Sackeim9 Loss of memory in both areas may be distressing and functionally impairing. Objective testing of the loss of autobiographical memory (personal memories – including both episodic and semantic), usually using the Colombia University Autobiographical Memory Interview (CUAMI), has shown that the degree of loss differs depending on treatment parameters and that it exceeds the normal decay of memories over time in healthy matched participants. Furthermore, in studies where it is objectively measured for at least 1 yearReference Sackeim10 this loss has been found to persist. Whether it continues for longer than 1 year is not clear from objective studies, but some patients report that it does and it seems unlikely that lost memories could return spontaneously after this point. Although studies report loss of autobiographical memory as a mean, compared with baseline, identification of individuals who experience particularly severe loss has rarely been done. Where this has been done, there is evidence that females and those receiving bilateral ECT are more at risk.Reference Sackeim, Prudic, Fuller, Keilp, Lavori and Olfson11

Subjective impairment

Studies of subjective reports of cognitive side-effects show varying percentages of patients who complain of ‘memory loss’, depending on a range of factors, including who interviewed them (Rose et alReference Rose, Wykes, Leese, Bindman and Fleischmann8). A recent review suggests that 60% of patients report memory problems, with 40% reporting that these lasted from several weeks to several years.Reference Chakrabarti, Grover and Rajagopal12 However, most of the patients involved in these studies received bilateral ECT, limiting generalisation to other forms of ECT. Subjective assessment of cognitive problems following ECT, usually assessed using detailed questionnaires, such as the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire,Reference Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald and Parkes13 correlates poorly with objective deficits. Subjective impairment often reduces throughout the course of treatment – tracking closely with clinical response. However, studies that used a simple question or seven-point Likert scale asking patients whether ECT ‘helped’ or ‘hurt’ their memory showed that scores on this scale declined (i.e. ECT ‘hurt’ memory on average) and this, in contrast with more complex assessment, correlated with loss of autobiographical memory.Reference Berman, Prudic, Brakemeier, Olfson and Sackeim14,Reference Brakemeier, Berman, Prudic, Zwillenberg and Sackeim15,Reference Semkovska, Landau, Dunne, Kolshus, Kavanagh and Jelovac16

How do treatment parameters affect cognitive side-effects?

Modern ECT can be broadly divided into three types depending on placement of electrodes and the pulse width of electricity administered.

  1. (a) Bilateral ECT (bitemporal or bifrontal electrode placement) using a brief pulse width.

  2. (b) Unilateral (usually right) (RUL) ECT using a brief pulse width – with pulses of electricity usually having a duration of 0.5–1 mS.

  3. (c) Unilateral using an ultra-brief pulse width (UB-RUL), usually 0.25–0.3 mS.

Although overall efficacy increases from UB-RUL to RUL to bilateral,Reference Tor, Bautovich, Wang, Martin, Harvey and Loo17,Reference Kellner, Cicek and Ables18 so do cognitive side-effects. In particular, reduction in scores on the CUAMI immediately following ECT follow the same gradient and are greater than for controls measured over the same time period. For each treatment, the dose of electricity above threshold also has an impact on the degree of cognitive side-effects (the higher the dose the greater the effects), including the long-term loss of autobiographical memory.Reference Sackeim, Prudic, Nobler, Fitzsimons, Lisanby and Payne19

Frequency of treatment

Few studies have examined the effects on cognitive side-effects of differences in frequency of treatment, in an RCT design. Although bilateral ECT three times a week provided more rapid relief, patients had more severe cognitive side-effects.Reference Shapira, Tubi, Drexler, Lidsky, Calev and Lerer20 In either case, effects are limited. A meta-analysisReference Semkovska and McLoughlin2 also showed some neurocognitive tests to be differentially affected by frequency when comparing results between studies (i.e. not randomised within studies), but only in the short term (4–14 days). This analysis did not consider retrograde amnesia.

Duration of treatment

ECT given at a frequency of two or three times a week causes increasing cognitive side-effects as the course lengthens.Reference Porter, Heenan and Reeves7 What has not been systematically studied is whether for most patients there is an acceleration of cognitive decline at a particular point in the course of treatment. An often recommended maximum number of treatments is 12 based on the fact that most patients who respond do so within that number of treatments. The mean number of treatments in most research studies and in clinical practice is between 8 and 10. Where UB-RUL is used the mean number of treatments may be slightly greater.Reference Loo, Sainsbury, Sheehan and Lyndon21 Our clinical experience is that at some point later in a course of ECT (particularly bilateral) cognitive side-effects sometimes rapidly become more problematic (i.e. there is a threshold effect). Therefore, wherever clinically possible, prolonged courses (>12 treatments) should be avoided and cognitive effects need to be monitored closely if the course is extended.

Maintenance treatment

A related question is whether maintenance treatment causes progressive cognitive side-effects. Pertinent to this issue is, the frequency of maintenance treatment which, by convention and empirically, is often monthly, often reached by gradual tapering of frequency from an index course. Individual case reports have suggested that cognitive side-effects do not accumulate in such instancesReference Barnes, Hussein, Anderson and Powell22 but the evidence is limited and there is no good evidence regarding the impact of treatment interval. Our clinical experience is that shorter intervals, particularly less than 3 weeks, can be problematic if treatment is prolonged. Monitoring of cognition may be particularly important if maintenance treatment at a shorter interval is unavoidable.

Sine wave ECT

Meta-analysis has shown that older machines that deliver ECT in the form of a sine wave give rise to significantly greater cognitive impairment than the brief or ultra-brief pulse machines that are now standard in most high-income countries.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2,Reference Sackeim, Prudic, Fuller, Keilp, Lavori and Olfson11 Of particular concern is data suggesting that ECT delivered using these machines resulted in impaired reaction time acutely and 6 months later.Reference Sackeim, Prudic, Fuller, Keilp, Lavori and Olfson11 In some parts of the world these machines are all that is available and cannot be upgraded. However, their use may still be justified in certain clinical situations. In this case, being aware of and monitoring likely side-effects is particularly important.

Individual patient factors

Individual risk factors for cognitive side-effects

Baseline Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS)Reference Teng and Chui23 scores correlate with autobiographical memory loss, such that those with lower scores have greater loss post-ECT.Reference Sobin, Sackeim, Prudic, Devanand, Moody and McElhiney24 In addition, although there is surprisingly little direct evidence, clinical experience suggests that patients who are elderly, have pre-existing brain injury or low intellectual ability are more vulnerable to the cognitive side-effects of ECT (see McClintock et alReference McClintock, Choi, Deng, Appelbaum, Krystal and Lisanby25 for a review). Regarding severe loss of autobiographical memory, there is some evidence that females are more vulnerable.Reference Sackeim, Prudic, Fuller, Keilp, Lavori and Olfson11

Regarding medication concomitant with ECT, only lithium has been associated with significantly increased risk of cognitive side-effects with ECT (see Loo et alReference Loo, Katalinic, Mitchell and Greenberg26 for a review). Cognitive side-effects and delirium should be monitored more closely in patients administered lithium, particularly at higher serum levels.Reference Malhi, Gershon and Outhred27,Reference Malhi, McAulay, Gershon, Gessler, Fritz and Das28

Monitoring cognitive side-effects

It would appear almost axiomatic that since cognitive side-effects are distressing, and develop progressively over the course of treatment, that they should be monitored in some way. Indeed, as patients should be told that memory loss may occur and will often have learnt of this through media and the Internet, it is reassuring if this is addressed repeatedly throughout the course of ECT. Indeed, several practice guidelines have specifically recommended routine assessment of cognitive function during a course of ECT29,Reference Scott30 (see RasmussenReference Rasmussen31 for a comprehensive review of recommendations). However, there are several problems with systematic cognitive monitoring.

  1. (a) Testing patients at baseline with particularly severe depression and even psychotic or catatonic features is difficult and often simply not feasible.

  2. (b) Repeat testing can be problematic as patients will remember tasks and may develop compensatory strategies over time.

  3. (c) In many centres resources are limited and the regular use of a detailed cognitive test battery is impractical.

Further research is needed to determine optimal testing to monitor cognitive side-effects. Ideally it should be demonstrated that early changes in monitoring tests correlate with later changes and that a patient with a large reduction in function on a particular test after two to three sessions is likely to go on to develop even greater and possibly clinically significant and distressing impairment later in the course of ECT treatment. Furthermore, there is no research that clearly indicates at what level of reduction from baseline concern should be raised. However, even without clear research evidence at this point, there are several potential uses of monitoring cognitive side-effects.

Clinical planning

Regardless of the caveats above, some form of monitoring is clearly desirable as it has the potential to guide treatment decisions. As discussed previously, choice of treatment modality depends on balancing clinical response and the potential for cognitive side-effects and this balance needs to be reviewed at regular intervals throughout a course of treatment and used to inform all aspects of the course of treatment. Clinical examples of this are given in Appendix 1.

An aspect of clinical planning that is important but sometimes neglected is the planning of recommendations in the weeks immediately following ECT. At this point recovery of new learning and executive function is variable and deficits may have an impact on activities such as driving and work. Clinicians need to have some understanding of cognitive functioning at this point in order to advise on return to these sorts of activities.

Medicolegal issues

Patients who believe they have developed significant cognitive impairment following a course of ECT may take legal action. In this situation systematic cognitive testing carried out before and after ECT may be very useful in demonstrating the presence or absence of significant reduction in objectively measured cognitive function between pre-treatment and post-treatment and in demonstrating that the clinic is active in anticipating and dealing with this problem.

How to monitor cognitive side-effects

Many clinics, even in high-income countries, will not have the resources to conduct an extensive cognitive battery and until such intensive monitoring has been shown to be useful clinically, although not discouraging this, we do not recommend it as routine. Therefore, testing must prioritise the most important issues and focus on these.

Candidate tests or domains for monitoring

Post-ictal disorientation

Patients may be disoriented for a variable period of time following an individual treatment. In the extreme case, this disorientation may persist in a fluctuating way for hours or days following a treatment – a post-ictal delirium. Sobin et alReference Sobin, Sackeim, Prudic, Devanand, Moody and McElhiney24 showed a correlation between time to orientation post-treatment and loss of autobiographical memory at 2 months after the end of the course. The correlation was driven by greater retrograde amnesia in a small group of patients who had recovery of orientation more than 30 min after the treatment. With most modern treatments it is unusual for this to happen, but recording time to re-orientation and reporting to clinicians when this is greater than, for example, 30 min is very simple and we recommend that this is done. More recently a small study confirmed the predictive effect of re-orientation across both RUL and bilateral ECT.Reference Martin, Gálvez and Loo32 A further and more rigorous development of this is the use of a specific questionnaire which, administered at 30 min post-ECT, in a small study correlated with loss of autobiographical memory at the end of the course.Reference Martin, Wong, Kumar and Loo33 Staff and families monitoring patients between treatments should be aware of the symptoms of delirium.

Global cognitive scales

Many units use scales measuring global cognitive performance as a means of monitoring. The 3MS has been shown to be sensitive to differences short term (4–14 days) between 2 × weekly and 3 × weekly and between RUL and bilateral electrode placement, and is able to detect the detrimental effects of ECT in the subacute period (0–4 days).Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin2 On this basis, it is potentially useful for monitoring. Other similar scales may also be used on the same basis if they are more familiar to clinicians or more available – for example the Montreal Cognitive AssessmentReference Nasreddine, Phillips, Bedirian, Charbonneau, Whitehead and Collin34 or the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination.

Brief general cognitive batteries

Several previous papers have recommended shorter, more clinically practical batteries of cognitive tests that could be delivered at intervals throughout a course. Porter et alReference Porter, Douglas and Knight35 recommended a battery based on tests that had, in research studies, shown significant differences between different types of ECT (RUL versus bilateral) on the basis that these were therefore sensitive to aspects of ECT that could be modified if necessary. Data on the utility of this battery in clinical practice are awaited. An attempt has also been made to construct extremely short (few minutes) batteries of tasks, changes in which may be predictive of later cognitive difficulties.Reference Martin, Katalinic, Ingram, Schweitzer, Smith and Hadzi-Pavlovic36 However, although correlations between changes in this brief cognitive battery and tests of anterograde memory post-ECT, there was no evidence that this was predictive of long-term loss of autobiographical memory. Standardised, computerised batteries of cognitive tests may be a method with future utility.

Anterograde amnesia

One of the most consistent findings, at least in the short term, is impairment of new learning, shown by reduced scores in verbal learning. This has often been demonstrated using the traditional Rey Verbal Learning TaskReference Rey37 or the shorter but less sensitive Hopkins Verbal Learning Test.Reference Brandt38

Retrograde amnesia

The planned nature of ECT allows an assessment of stored memories, prior to the start of a course, in order to be able to monitor what has been lost. Usually, amnesia for autobiographic memory is measured. The most systematic approach to this is to elicit a large number of memories, record these and then prompt patients to retrieve the memories later in the course of treatment. This has been done most commonly and systematically using the CUAMI, a scale that was carefully constructed to illicit positive, negative and neutral memories and recent and remote events. The same questions are then asked at intervals throughout a course of ECT to generate a score reflecting the amount of information forgotten. This has been compared with the natural loss of memories over time in healthy participants.Reference Sackeim10 It is sensitive to differences in different methods of ECT, with the amount of information being forgotten at 6 months displaying a gradient from healthy participants at one end of the gradient to those having bilateral ECT at the other end, with unilateral ECT in between. The scale is, however, lengthy (281 questions over 1–3.5 h) making it impractical for use in clinical practice.

A shorter form was therefore developed (CUAMI- SF) that utilises only 30 questions, focusing on the previous 1 year. Areas covered are shown in Appendix 2 and illustrate the areas in which questioning has been able to elicit loss of memory. These items were chosen from the larger CUAMI because they produced high and equivalent rates of production of memories at baseline in patients with depression and controls, and because they differentiated RUL from bilateral ECT. Both the CUAMI and its short form have been criticised because they have not undergone the same rigorous standardisation as traditional neuropsychological tests.Reference Semkovska and McLoughlin39 However, they represent a specific attempt to perform a particular function, which is to measure loss of autobiographical memory, in research into ECT and, in the case of the CUAMI-SF, to attempt to produce a scale that can be used clinically to measure autobiographical memory loss during and after ECT. To date, no better alternative has been developed.

Possible further criticisms may be that some of the items asked are poorly discriminative in certain people or populations with different customs or lifestyles and that the test may not therefore build up a picture of important memories that are likely to be lost. For example, in our practice, questions about what the patient did at New Year do not elicit a lot of variable information in the elderly people who have depression, who may easily be able to remember that they went to bed, as they do each year.

Subjective impairment

Although more complex questionnaires assessing subjective memory tend to correlate better with mood than objective impairment, simpler questions regarding whether ECT has ‘helped or hurt’ memory correlates well with objective measurement of memory impairment.Reference Semkovska, Keane, Babalola and McLoughlin3,Reference Brakemeier, Berman, Prudic, Zwillenberg and Sackeim15 Therefore, this simple question or a simple Likert scale may be very helpful in alerting clinicians to the onset of memory problems.

Individualising questions about autobiographical memory risks losing standardisation. This means that information regarding whether a patient has reached a threshold of memory loss that is likely to become clinically concerning is not available. However, where resources are scarce, a practical alternative to the CUAMI-SF is for clinicians to discuss with patients and their relatives what they have experienced in the previous 1 year and elicit and record some details that the clinician can attempt to elicit again at intervals during a course of ECT. This might involve relevant items from the CUAMI-SF and other items specific to the patient. Examples might include: have they attended a wedding? If so, record details of who was getting married, who attended, where it was held. Or have they attended a sporting event, and if so, who was playing. Suitable events could be suggested by family or friends.

Recent data suggests that although many patients have a subjective sense of memory problems following ECT, when patients perceptions of memory problems before the course of ECT are taken into account, a much lower percentage have a change in this.Reference Sigström, Nordenskjöld, Juréus, Clements, Joas and Pålsson40 Therefore it is helpful to ask about and record perceived memory gaps both before and after treatment.

Family and friends are frequently asked about memory performance of patients receiving ECT but it is important to be specific about what is meant by ‘memory’ and what specific aspects are being enquired about.

High-risk situations

Some situations may be particularly high risk and merit increased monitoring. Examples (but not an exhaustive list) include the following.

  1. (a) Patients who are likely to be at high risk – for example, elderly patients, those who have had significant brain injury or some other source of vulnerability such as concomitant lithium prescription.

  2. (b) When the course of treatment extends beyond 12 treatments. This may not apply to UB-RUL which is relatively cognitive sparing and more frequently requires a longer course for full remission.

  3. (c) Maintenance ECT, particularly if this has been at a frequency greater than monthly or is long term (longer than 1 year). Monitoring could be done at relatively infrequent intervals (3 months to 1 year) making it more practical to undertake repeated testing.

  4. (d) In low- and middle-income countries where it may not always be possible to conduct ECT with the most up to date equipment (see ‘Sine wave ECT’ above). In this situation monitoring which can be quickly undertaken by relatively unskilled personnel, according to the suggestions in Appendix 3, may be possible and guide treatment decisions.

Discussion

What should we tell patients?

The following list is a distillation of our understanding of the cognitive side-effects of ECT, which we believe incorporates the most important points that should be conveyed to patients and their families regarding this issue.

  1. (a) ECT may cause loss of memory for things that patients have learnt or experienced. Some patients find this distressing but some do not.

  2. (b) This memory loss is normally worse for the time immediately before ECT (3 months) – but sometimes extends back for up to 1 year and may occasionally extend beyond this.

  3. (c) Usually this memory loss will improve significantly by 6 months but depression may result in residual problems and some of the memories for things that have been experienced will not return.

  4. (d) Ability to learn new ‘things’ will be less for a short time after ECT – this is usually for a maximum of 2 weeks, at which point, this ability will be back to baseline. This may delay return to usual activities.

  5. (e) Ability to plan things, concentrate and attend to things may be improved because the depression has been treated.

  6. (f) Beyond possible effects of ECT on learning and memory, unfortunately severe depression itself is related to problems with learning and memory and for some people this does not improve completely even when the depression has considerably improved.

Each aspect of these side-effects should be emphasised more for patients whose ECT treatment parameters or risk factors make the problems more likely:

  1. (a) bilateral (bitemporal/bifrontal) ECT;

  2. (b) prolonged course of standard treatment or frequent maintenance treatment;

  3. (c) existing cognitive difficulties (brain injury, intellectual disability, other existing brain disease);

  4. (d) elderly patients.

It is noteworthy that although evidence suggests a return to baseline and even improvement within 14 days of the end of a course of ECT, patients may be attempting to return to their roles in this period, something that could be hampered even by a brief period of short-term cognitive dysfunction. Patients should be warned about this possibility and clinicians should attempt to gauge the extent of the problem. Even temporary impairment may set up a cycle of difficulty in functioning, negative appraisal of performance and avoidance of cognitive activity, which in turn may contribute to suboptimal recovery or to relapse.

It is important to provide written information including to family/support people as patients may not remember explanations later. Most professional bodies have written information and health authorities usually have information sheets provided with consent sheets. These do not necessarily replace informed discussion.

Implications

ECT is a potentially life-saving treatment for severe MDEs and it is frequently effective in cases of treatment-resistant MDEs. The main disadvantage is that it is associated with cognitive side-effects. Some forms of ECT minimise the risk of these side-effects but in some patients this is at the expense of reduced efficacy. Despite considerable advances in technique there is still the need to strike a careful balance between efficacy and side-effects. The most important area of cognitive effects associated with ECT is loss of autobiographical memory, which is distressing for some patients, and all patients should be informed of the possible nature and extent of this phenomenon. Data suggesting a lack of effect on other aspects of cognition is based on group means and does not exclude the possibility that a subgroup of patients experience deficits that are masked by a general improvement in cognition in the rest of the group.

Monitoring is demanding and research findings regarding the best way of monitoring is limited, but some basic monitoring can be achieved relatively easily. It is important to give very clear information to patients and their families.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Author contributions

R.J.P., B.T.B., G.M., A.H., D.B., P.B., M.J.H., R.M., G.P., A.B.S. and G.S.M. were involved in developing the main conceptual ideas and planning of the manuscript. R.J.P. conducted the majority of the literature review and drafted the manuscript with input from authors. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council, Grant/Award Number: 1037196. The Treatment Algorithm Group (TAG) was supported logistically by Servier who provided financial assistance with travel and accommodation for those TAG members travelling interstate or overseas to attend the meeting in Sydney (held on 18 November 2017). None of the committee were paid to participate in this project and Servier have not had any input into the content, format or outputs from this project.

Declaration of interest

R.J.P. uses software for research at no cost from Scientific Brain Training Pro and support for travel and accommodation from Servier and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work. P.B. reports personal fees from Servier, personal fees from Lundbeck and personal fees from Douglas Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. M.J.H. has received grants and personal fees from Servier and personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, Hahn, Sequiris, Bionomics and Mundipharma, outside the submitted work. G.P. has spoken at meetings or been on advisory boards for the following companies: Servier, Lundbeck and Otsuka, outside the submitted work. A.B.S. has been a speaker for Servier, Lundbeck and Otsuka and has equity in CNSDose LLC and ABC Life Pty Ltd, outside the submitted work. G.S.M. has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Organon, Pfizer, Servier and Wyeth; has been a speaker for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janessen-Cilag, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier and Wyeth; and has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, EliLilly, Janssen-Cilag, Lundbeck and Servier, outside the submitted work.

ICMJE forms are in the supplementary material, available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.17.

Appendix 1

Clinical examples of monitoring in practice

Example one

A 78-year-old with moderate depression and treatment resistance shows minimal response after six treatments with ultra-brief right unilateral (RUL) electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) despite increases in dose. Cognitive monitoring suggests no deterioration. Therefore, a decision is made to change to brief pulse RUL.

Example two

A 40-year-old with severe, suicidal and psychotic depression shows significant improvement but still presents with moderate symptoms after six treatments with bilateral ECT. Cognitive monitoring shows a very significant loss of autobiographical memory. In this situation the decision was made to switch to RUL ECT until full remission was achieved.

Example three

A 25-year-old with a history of a moderate traumatic brain injury and current severe depression with suicidal thoughts is treated with RUL ECT. There is some improvement but very significant loss of autobiographical memory. The decision was made to switch to ultra-brief RUL ECT to achieve further improvement in mood symptoms.

Appendix 2

Features of the Columbia University Autobiographical Memory Interview – Short Form:

  1. (a) Focuses on past 1 year.

  2. (b) Asks about work history, travel, relatives, celebrations (birthday and New Year), and medical treatment.

  3. (c) Probes each area with five further questions – for example, travel (number of days away, name of lodging, travel companions, reason for trip and what was enjoyed about the trip).

  4. (d) Subsequent scores based on information given at baseline and can be expressed as percentage lost.

  5. (e) Takes 10–20 min to administer.

Appendix 3

Recommendations for monitoring of cognitive function during and after electroconvulsive therapy

Minimal screening

  1. (a) Record and report any failure to be oriented more than 30 min after a treatment.

  2. (b) Educate all carers regarding features of inter-ictal delirium.

  3. (c) Enquire at baseline about important events in the patient's life during the previous 1 year. Elicit and record some salient details. Discuss with family/support people and confirm. Ask about these events regularly (every three treatments). Record whether there is a significant loss of memory for these events.

  4. (d) Enquire of patient and relatives (and nursing staff if the patient is an in-patient) regarding any evidence of memory loss both prior to and after treatment. Explain to all three groups what autobiographical memory is and the types of memory that may therefore be lost.

  5. (e) Ask patients whether they believe the treatment has ‘helped’ or ‘hurt’ their memory and consider rating on a scale of one to seven, with four being neutral.

If resources exist

  1. (a) Consider doing the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination or similar brief cognitive screen

  2. (b) Consider undertaking a formal Columbia University Autobiographical Interview – Short Form.

  3. (c) Consider doing a test of anterograde memory for example (Hopkins Verbal Learning TestReference Scott30 or Rey Verbal Learning Test29).

Frequency

  1. (a) Baseline and after every two to three treatments.

  2. (b) More frequently in high-risk situations.

  3. (c) Three to four days after the last treatment of the course of electroconvulsive therapy to guide planning of return to activities.

References

Loo, C. ECT in the 21st century: optimizing treatment: state of the art in the 21st century. J ECT 2010; 26: 157.10.1097/YCT.0b013e3181efa1c4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semkovska, M, McLoughlin, DM. Objective cognitive performance associated with electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Psychiatry 2010; 68: 568–77.10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.06.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semkovska, M, Keane, D, Babalola, O, McLoughlin, DM. Unilateral brief-pulse electroconvulsive therapy and cognition: effects of electrode placement, stimulus dosage and time. J Psychiatr Res 2011; 45: 770–80.10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reppermund, S, Zihl, J, Lucae, S, Horstmann, S, Kloiber, S, Holsboer, F, et al. Persistent cognitive impairment in depression: the role of psychopathology and altered hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) system regulation. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62: 400–6.10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.09.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, KM, Porter, RJ, Knight, RG, Maruff, P. Neuropsychological changes and treatment response in severe depression. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 198: 115–22.10.1192/bjp.bp.110.080713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, KM, Gallagher, P, Robinson, LJ, Carter, JD, McIntosh, VV, Frampton, CM, et al. Prevalence of cognitive impairment in major depression and bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2018; 20: 260–74.10.1111/bdi.12602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, RJ, Heenan, H, Reeves, J. Early effects of electroconvulsive therapy on cognitive function. J ECT 2008; 24: 35–9.10.1097/YCT.0b013e31816207f0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D, Wykes, T, Leese, M, Bindman, J, Fleischmann, P. Patients’ perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1363.10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanby, SH, Maddox, JH, Prudic, J, Devanand, DP, Sackeim, HA. The effects of electroconvulsive therapy on memory of autobiographical and public events. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57: 581–90.10.1001/archpsyc.57.6.581CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackeim, HA. Autobiographical memory and electroconvulsive therapy: do not throw out the baby. J ECT 2014; 30: 177–86.10.1097/YCT.0000000000000117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackeim, HA, Prudic, J, Fuller, R, Keilp, J, Lavori, PW, Olfson, M. The cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy in community settings. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007; 32: 244–54.10.1038/sj.npp.1301180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakrabarti, S, Grover, S, Rajagopal, R. Electroconvulsive therapy: a review of knowledge, experience and attitudes of patients concerning the treatment. World J Biol Psychiatry 2010; 11: 525–37.10.3109/15622970903559925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadbent, DE, Cooper, PF, FitzGerald, P, Parkes, KR. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol 1982; 21: 1–16.10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, RM, Prudic, J, Brakemeier, EL, Olfson, M, Sackeim, HA. Subjective evaluation of the therapeutic and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Brain Stimul 2008; 1: 16–26.10.1016/j.brs.2007.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brakemeier, EL, Berman, R, Prudic, J, Zwillenberg, K, Sackeim, HA. Self-evaluation of the cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. J ECT 2011; 27: 59–66.10.1097/YCT.0b013e3181d77656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semkovska, M, Landau, S, Dunne, R, Kolshus, E, Kavanagh, A, Jelovac, A, et al. Bitemporal versus high-dose unilateral twice-weekly electroconvulsive therapy for depression (EFFECT-Dep): a pragmatic, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Am J Psychiatry 2016; 173: 408–17.10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tor, PC, Bautovich, A, Wang, MJ, Martin, D, Harvey, SB, Loo, C. A systematic review and meta-analysis of brief versus ultrabrief right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy for depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2015; 76: e1092–8.10.4088/JCP.14r09145CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellner, CH, Cicek, M, Ables, JL. Letter to the Editor: electrode placement in electroconvulsive therapy - bilateral is still the ‘gold standard’ for some patients. Psychol Med 2017; 47: 1510–1.10.1017/S0033291716003536CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackeim, HA, Prudic, J, Nobler, MS, Fitzsimons, L, Lisanby, SH, Payne, N, et al. Effects of pulse width and electrode placement on the efficacy and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Brain Stimul 2008; 1: 71–83.10.1016/j.brs.2008.03.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapira, B, Tubi, N, Drexler, H, Lidsky, D, Calev, A, Lerer, B, et al. Cost and benefit in the choice of ECT schedule. Twice versus three times weekly ECT. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172: 44–8.10.1192/bjp.172.1.44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loo, CK, Sainsbury, K, Sheehan, P, Lyndon, B. A comparison of RUL ultrabrief pulse (0.3 ms) ECT and standard RUL ECT. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2008; 11: 883–90.10.1017/S1461145708009292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, RC, Hussein, A, Anderson, DN, Powell, D. Maintenance electroconvulsive therapy and cognitive function. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 170: 285–7.10.1192/bjp.170.3.285CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teng, EL, Chui, HC. The modified mini-mental state (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry 1987; 48: 314–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Sobin, C, Sackeim, HA, Prudic, J, Devanand, DP, Moody, BJ, McElhiney, MC. Predictors of retrograde amnesia following ECT. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152: 995–1001.Google ScholarPubMed
McClintock, SM, Choi, J, Deng, ZD, Appelbaum, LG, Krystal, AD, Lisanby, SH. Multifactorial determinants of the neurocognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. J ECT 2014; 30: 165–76.10.1097/YCT.0000000000000137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loo, C, Katalinic, N, Mitchell, PB, Greenberg, B. Physical treatments for bipolar disorder: a review of electroconvulsive therapy, stereotactic surgery and other brain stimulation techniques. J Affect Disord 2011; 132: 1–13.10.1016/j.jad.2010.08.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malhi, GS, Gershon, S, Outhred, T. Lithiumeter: Version 2.0. Bipolar Disord 2016; 18: 631–41.10.1111/bdi.12455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malhi, GS, McAulay, C, Gershon, S, Gessler, D, Fritz, K, Das, P, et al. The Lithium Battery: assessing the neurocognitive profile of lithium in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2016; 18: 102–15.10.1111/bdi.12375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging (4th edn). American Psychiatric Association, 2001.Google Scholar
Scott, AIF. The ECT Handbook (2nd edn): 244. Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2005.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, KG. What type of cognitive testing should be part of routine electroconvulsive therapy practice? J ECT 2016; 32: 7–12.10.1097/YCT.0000000000000257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, DM, Gálvez, V, Loo, CK. Predicting retrograde autobiographical memory changes following electroconvulsive therapy: relationships between individual, treatment, and early clinical factors. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2015; 18: pyv067.10.1093/ijnp/pyv067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, DM, Wong, A, Kumar, DR, Loo, CK. Validation of the 10-item orientation questionnaire: a new tool for monitoring post-electroconvulsive therapy disorientation. J ECT 2018; 34: 21–5.10.1097/YCT.0000000000000455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasreddine, ZS, Phillips, NA, Bedirian, V, Charbonneau, S, Whitehead, V, Collin, I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 695–9.10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, RJ, Douglas, K, Knight, RG. Monitoring of cognitive effects during a course of electroconvulsive therapy: recommendations for clinical practice. J ECT 2008; 24: 25–34.10.1097/YCT.0b013e31815d9627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, DM, Katalinic, N, Ingram, A, Schweitzer, I, Smith, DJ, Hadzi-Pavlovic, D, et al. A new early cognitive screening measure to detect cognitive side-effects of electroconvulsive therapy? J Psychiatr Res 2013; 47: 1967–74.10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.08.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, A. L'Examen Clinique en Psychologie. [The Clinical Examination in Psychology.] Press Universitaire de France, 1964.Google Scholar
Brandt, J. The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test: development of a new memory test with six equivalent forms. Clin Neuropsychol 1991; 5: 125–42.10.1080/13854049108403297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semkovska, M, McLoughlin, DM. Measuring retrograde autobiographical amnesia following electroconvulsive therapy: historical perspective and current issues. J ECT 2013; 29: 127–33.10.1097/YCT.0b013e318279c2c9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigström, R, Nordenskjöld, A, Juréus, A, Clements, C, Joas, E, Pålsson, E, et al. Long-term subjective memory after electroconvulsive therapy. Br J Psychiatry Open 2020; 6: e26:1–7.10.1192/bjo.2020.9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Porter et al. supplementary material

Porter et al. supplementary material

Download Porter et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.6 MB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.