Table 3.
Variables associated with a more negative retrospective evaluation of the effect of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on memorya
| Univariate model | Final multivariate model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | OR | 95% CI | P | |
| Female gender | 1.71 | 1.07–2.75 | 0.03 | 1.69 | 1.03–2.78 | 0.04 |
| Indication for ECT | ||||||
| Unipolar depression | Reference | |||||
| Bipolar depression | 1.50 | 0.76–2.98 | 0.24 | |||
| All other conditions | 0.57 | 0.26–1.29 | 0.18 | |||
| Previously treated with ECT | 1.03 | 0.65–1.64 | 0.90 | |||
| Lithium | 1.61 | 0.84–3.05 | 0.15 | |||
| Valproate | 3.88 | 1.04–14.44 | 0.04 | 4.00 | 1.07–14.93 | 0.040 |
| Lamotrigine | 0.91 | 0.42–1.97 | 0.80 | |||
| Antipsychotic | 1.03 | 0.66–1.60 | 0.91 | |||
| Antidepressant | 1.06 | 0.60–1.86 | 0.85 | |||
| Bifrontal/bitemporal ECT (v. unilateral) | 0.69 | 0.34–1.42 | 0.32 | |||
| Brief pulse width (v. ultrabrief) | 1.04 | 0.60–1.79 | 0.90 | |||
| Age, per 10 years | 0.74 | 0.64–0.85 | <0.001 | 0.73 | 0.63–0.85 | <0.001 |
| Duration of follow-up, per 4 weeks | 1.04 | 0.87–1.24 | 0.68 | |||
| Number of ECT sessions, per session | 1.04 | 0.99–1.10 | 0.14 | |||
| Charge, per 100 mC | 0.93 | 0.74–1.16 | 0.50 | |||
| CGI severity pre-ECT (1–7),b per point increase | 0.91 | 0.68–1.22 | 0.54 | |||
| More subjective memory impairment pre-ECT (CPRS, 0–6),b per point increase | 1.20 | 1.03–1.40 | 0.02 | 1.31 | 1.11–1.55 | 0.002 |
| CGI improvement (1–7),b per point increase | 1.25 | 0.96–1.62 | 0.10 | |||
| More negative expectation of memory effect (GSE-My, 1–7), per point worsening | 1.29 | 1.04–1.60 | 0.02 | 1.30 | 1.03–1.66 | 0.029 |
| More negative expectation of mood effect (GSE-Md, 1–7), per point worsening | 1.18 | 0.88–1.60 | 0.27 | |||
CGI, Clinical Global Impressions scale; CPRS, Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale; GSE-My, GSE-Md, Global Self-Evaluation Memory and Mood.
a.
Odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for a more negative retrospective evaluation of ECT's effect on memory, estimated from an ordinal regression model with multiple imputation.
b.
Lower score is better.