Differences in electrode placements between consensual and nonconsensual electroconvulsive therapy: retrospective chart review study

Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT. Aims To investigate whether...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hye-Sang Shin, Naveen Thomas, Yiting Amanda Gong, Rajeev Krishnadas, Alby Elias
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press 2025-07-01
Series:BJPsych Open
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2056472425100537/type/journal_article
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT. Aims To investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes. Method Using a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log–linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis. Results In total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group (χ 2 = 200.53; P < 0.0001; odds ratio: 2.6673, 95% CI: 2.3244–3.0608). This association remained significant after adjustment for gender, age, level of education and diagnosis. Conclusion Significantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of ECT.
ISSN:2056-4724