低电量电抽搐治疗对急性期精神分裂症女性患者疗效的单盲随机对照试验  

A single-blind, randomized controlled trial of low-dose electroconvulsive therapy（LECT） in female patients with acute schizophrenia

作　　者：李敏智[1,2] 李婷 李毅 许崇涛[1] Li Minzhi;Li Ting;Li Yi;Xu Chongtao(Medical School of Shantou University,Shantou 515031,China;Female Ward of Emergency Intervention,Kangning Hospital,Shenzhen 518020,China;Laboratory Department,Kangning Hospital,Shenzhen 518020,China;MECT Department,Kangning Hospital,Shenzhen 518020,China)

机构地区：[1]汕头大学医学院,515031 [2]深圳市康宁医院急性干预女区,518020 [3]深圳市康宁医院检验科,518020 [4]深圳市康宁医院MECT科,518020

出　　处：《神经疾病与精神卫生》2018年第8期560-563,共4页Journal of Neuroscience and Mental Health

基　　金：深圳市卫生计生系统科研项目（SZFZ2017072）

摘　　要：目的 比较低电量电抽搐治疗（LECT）与改良电抽搐治疗（MECT）在治疗女性精神分裂症的疗效及不良反应方面的差别.方法 将符合入组标准的女性精神分裂症患者随机分为LECT组及MECT组,每组20例.LECT组能量设定为2.8 J.常规MECT组能量焦耳数设定为稍大于患者年龄的1/2.通过阳性与阴性症状量表（PANSS）降分率评估疗效,记录不良反应.结果 LECT组与MECT组的减分数在阴性症状量表上为（3.3±1.5）分、（4.4±2.0）分,差异有统计学意义（t=2.059,P=0.046）,在阳性症状量表及一般精神病理学量表上分别为（7.1±2.7）分、（9.0±3.8）分及（10.5±3.8）分、（13.0±5.2）分,差异无统计学意义.LECT组及MECT组出现不良反应人次分别为6次和58次,组间差异有统计学意义（χ^2=15.000,P〈0.001）.结论 LECT在疗效上不明显劣于传统诱发抽搐发作电量的ECT,而在不良反应方面则显著减少.Objective To compare the difference between low-energy electroconvulsive therapy （LECT） and modified electroconvulsive therapy （MECT） in the efficacy and adverse reactions of schizophrenia in female patients. Methods The female patients with schizophrenia enrolled were randomly divided into LECT group and MECT group, with 20 cases in each group. The LECT group energy setting was 2.8 joules. The energy Joule of the conventional MECT group was set to be slightly larger than 1/2 of the patients＇ age. Adverse effects were assessed by the rate of decline in the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale （PANSS）, and the adverse reactions were recorded. Results The scores of the LECT group and the MECT group were （3.3 ± 1.5） and （4.4± 2.0） respectively on the negative symptom scale （PANSS-N）, and the difference was statistically significant （t=2.059, P=0.046）. The scores of LECT group and the MECT group on the positive symptom scale （PANSS-P） and the general psychopathological symptom scale （PANSS-G） were [ （7.1 ±2.7） vs （9.0 ± 3.8） ] and [ （10.5 ± 3.8） vs （13.0±5.2） ] respectively, there was no statistical significance. The number of adverse reactions in the LECT group and the MECT group was 6 and 58 respectively, and the difference between groups was statistically significant （χ^2=15.000, P 〈 0.001）. Conclusions LECT was not inferior to conventional MECT in efficacy, but significantly decreased in adverse reactions.

关 键 词：精神分裂症 随机对照试验 电抽搐治疗 低电量 疗效 不良反应 

分 类 号：R749.059[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]