Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_205_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
312 The APA Publishing Textbook of Mood Disorders, Second Edition
https://t.me/med1917
Kleimann A, Kotsiari A, Sperling W, et al: BDNF serum levels and promoter methylation of
BDNF exon I, IV and VI in depressed patients receiving electroconvulsive therapy. J Neu
ral Transm (Vienna) 122(6):925–928, 2015 25387785
Knight F, Ridge D, McShane R, et al: Care, control, and the electroconvulsive therapy ritual:
making sense of polarized patient narratives. Qual Health Res 27(11):1675–1685, 2017
28799472
Kring IS, Bergholt MD, Midtgaard J: The perspectives of former recipients and experts on stig-
matization related to electroconvulsive therapy in Denmark: a focus group study. J Psychi-
atr Ment Health Nurs 25(5–6):358–367, 2018 29758121
Kruse JL, Congdon E, Olmstead R, et al: Inflammation and improvement of depression follow-
ing electroconvulsive therapy in treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry
79(2):17m11597, 2018 29489077
Krystal AD, Weiner RD, Coffey CE: The ictal EEG as a marker of adequate stimulus intensity
with unilateral ECT. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 7(3):295–303, 1995 7580187
Lambe S, Mogg A, Eranti S, et al: Trends in use of electroconvulsive therapy in South London
from 1949 to 2006. J ECT 30(4):309–314, 2014 24625707
Latey RH, Fahy TJ: Electroconvulsive therapy in the Republic of Ireland 1982: a summary of
findings. Br J Psychiatry 147:438–439, 1985 4075035
Leiknes KA, Cooke MJ, Jarosch-von Schweder L, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy during preg-
nancy: a systematic review of case studies. Arch Women Ment Health 18(1):1–39, 2015
24271084
Lesage A, Lemasson M, Medina K, et al: The prevalence of electroconvulsive therapy use since
1973: a meta-analysis. J ECT 32(4):236–242, 2016 27227401
Letemendia FJ, Delva NJ, Rodenburg M, et al: Therapeutic advantage of bifrontal electrode
placement in ECT. Psychol Med 23(2):349–360, 1993 8332652
Levy A, Taib S, Arbus C, et al: Neuroimaging biomarkers at baseline predict electroconvulsive
therapy overall clinical response in depression: a systematic review. J ECT 35(2):77–83,
2019 30628993
Lima NN, Nascimento VB, Peixoto JA, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy use in adolescents: a
systematic review. Ann Gen Psychiatry 12(1):17, 2013 23718899
Lisanby SH, McClintock SM, Alexopoulos G, et al: Neurocognitive effects of combined electro-
convulsive therapy (ECT) and venlafaxine in geriatric depression: phase 1 of the PRIDE
study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 28(3):304–316, 2020 31706638
Luchini F, Medda P, Mariani MG, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy in catatonic patients: efficacy
and predictors of response. World J Psychiatry 5(2):182–192, 2015 26110120
Matthews AM, Rosenquist PB, McCall WV: Representations of ECT in English-language film
and television in the new millennium. J ECT 32(3):187–191, 2016 27008331
McCall WV, Reboussin DM, Weiner RD, et al: Titrated moderately suprathreshold vs fixed
high-dose right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy: acute antidepressant and cognitive
effects (see comments). Arch Gen Psychiatry 57(5):438–444, 2000 10807483
McCall WV, Prudic J, Olfson M, et al: Health-related quality of life following ECT in a large
community sample. J Affect Disord 90(2–3):269–274, 2006 16412519
McDonald WM: Are modern neuromodulation therapies too precise? Pers Med Psychiatry
17:1–3, 2019
McDonald WM, van Rooij SJH: Targeting PTSD. Am J Psychiatry 176(11):894–896, 2019
31672041
McDonald WM, Phillips V, Figielo GS, et al: Cost-effective maintenance treatment of resistant
geriatric depression. Psychiatric Annals 28:47–52, 1998
McDonald WM, Meeks TW, Carpenter LL, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy and other neuro-
modulation therapies, in The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychophar-
macology, 5th Edition. Edited by Schatzberg AF, Nemeroff CB. Washington, DC, American
Psychiatric Press, 2017, pp 861–899
Medda P, Perugi G, Zanello S, et al: Comparative response to electroconvulsive therapy in
medication-resistant bipolar I patients with depression and mixed state. J ECT 26(2):82–86,
2010 19710623
-

313 Electroconvulsive Therapy
https://t.me/med1917
Medda P, Mauri M, Toni C, et al: Predictors of remission in 208 drug-resistant depressive pa-
tients treated with electroconvulsive therapy. J ECT 30(4):292–297, 2014a 24625706
Medda P, Toni C, Perugi G, et al: The mood-stabilizing effects of electroconvulsive therapy.
J ECT 30(4):275–282, 2014b 25010031
Medda P, Toni C, Luchini F, et al: Catatonia in 26 patients with bipolar disorder: clinical fea-
tures and response to electroconvulsive therapy. Bipolar Disord 17(8):892–901, 2015
26643014
Minelli A, Congiu C, Ventriglia M, et al: Influence of GRIK4 genetic variants on the electrocon-
vulsive therapy response. Neurosci Lett 626:94–98, 2016 27222927
Moss L, Vaidya N: Does comorbid alcohol and substance abuse affect electroconvulsive ther-
apy outcome in the treatment of mood disorders? J ECT 30(1):22–25, 2014 23859979
Mukherjee S, Sackeim HA, Schnur DB: Electroconvulsive therapy of acute manic episodes: a
review of 50 years’ experience. Am J Psychiatry 151(2):169–176, 1994 8296883
Munk-Olsen T, Laursen TM, Videbech P, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy: predictors and
trends in utilization from 1976 to 2000. J ECT 22(2):127–132, 2006 16801829
Nahas Z, Short B, Burns C, et al: A feasibility study of a new method for electrically producing
seizures in man: focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST). Brain Stimul
6(3):403–408, 2013 23518262
Nilsen SM, Willis KW, Pettinati HM: Initial impression of two new brief-pulse electroconvul-
sive therapy machines. Convuls Ther 2(1):43–54, 1986 11940844
Nivoli AM, Murru A, Goikolea JM, et al: New treatment guidelines for acute bipolar mania: a
critical review. J Affect Disord 140(2):125–141, 2012 22100133
Nobler MS, Luber B, Moeller JR, et al: Quantitative EEG during seizures induced by electrocon-
vulsive therapy: relations to treatment modality and clinical features, I: global analyses.
J ECT 16(3):211–228, 2000 11005043
Nordenskjöld A, von Knorring L, Engström I: Predictors of the short-term responder rate of
electroconvulsive therapy in depressive disorders—a population based study. BMC Psychiatry 12:115, 2012 22900754
O’Connor MK, Knapp R, Husain M, et al: The influence of age on the response of major depres-
sion to electroconvulsive therapy: a C.O.R.E. report. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 9(4):382–390,
2001 11739064
O’Reardon JP, Solvason HB, Janicak PG, et al: Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stim-
ulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial.
Biol Psychiatry 62(11):1208–1216, 2007 17573044
Patel RS, Jain SB, Youssef NA: Electroconvulsive treatment utilization for the inpatient manage-
ment of severe manic episodes of bipolar disorder. J ECT 35(3):195–200, 2019 30870263
Perugi G, Medda P, Zanello S, et al: Episode length and mixed features as predictors of ECT
nonresponse in patients with medication-resistant major depression. Brain Stimul 5(1):18–
24, 2012 22037132
Perugi G, Medda P, Reis J, et al: Clinical subtypes of severe bipolar mixed states. J Affect Disord
151(3):1076–1082, 2013 24074482
Petrides G, Fink M, Husain MM, et al: ECT remission rates in psychotic versus nonpsychotic
depressed patients: a report from CORE. J ECT 17(4):244–253, 2001 11731725
Plakiotis C, George K, O’Connor DW: Has electroconvulsive therapy use remained stable over
time? A decade of electroconvulsive therapy service provision in Victoria, Australia. Aust
N Z J Psychiatry 46(6):522–531, 2012 22375067
Pompili M, Dominici G, Giordano G, et al: Electroconvulsive treatment during pregnancy: a
systematic review. Expert Rev Neurother 14(12):1377–1390, 2014 25346216
Puffer CC, Wall CA, Huxsahl JE, et al: A 20 year practice review of electroconvulsive therapy
for adolescents. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 26(7):632–636, 2016 26784386
Raffin M, Zugaj-Bensaou L, Bodeau N, et al: Treatment use in a prospective naturalistic cohort
of children and adolescents with catatonia. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24(4):441–449,
2015 25159089
Rapoport MJ, Mamdani M, Herrmann N: Electroconvulsive therapy in older adults: 13-year
trends. Can J Psychiatry 51(9):616–619, 2006 17007229

314 The APA Publishing Textbook of Mood Disorders, Second Edition
https://t.me/med1917
Rasmussen KG: Do patients with personality disorders respond differentially to electroconvul-
sive therapy? A review of the literature and consideration of conceptual issues. J ECT
31(1):6–12, 2015 25054362
Rasmussen KG, Mueller M, Rummans TA, et al: Is baseline medication resistance associated
with potential for relapse after successful remission of a depressive episode with ECT?
Data from the Consortium for Research on Electroconvulsive Therapy (CORE). J Clin Psy
chiatry 70(2):232–237, 2009 19192459
Redlich R, Opel N, Grotegerd D, et al: Prediction of individual response to electroconvulsive
therapy via machine learning on structural magnetic resonance imaging data. JAMA Psy
chiatry 73(6):557–564, 2016 27145449
Rootes-Murdy K, Carlucci M, Tibbs M, et al: Non-suicidal self-injury and electroconvulsive
therapy: outcomes in adolescent and young adult populations. J Affect Disord 250:94–98,
2019 30844603
Ross EL, Zivin K, Maixner DF: Cost-effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy vs pharmaco-
therapy/psychotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in the United States. JAMA
Psychiatry 75(7):713–722, 2018 29800956
Rush AJ, Aaronson ST, Demyttenaere K: Difficult-to-treat depression: a clinical and research
roadmap for when remission is elusive. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 53(2):109–118, 2019 30378447
Saatcioglu O, Tomruk NB: The use of electroconvulsive therapy in pregnancy: a review. Isr J
Psychiatry Relat Sci 48(1):6–11, 2011 21572236
Sackeim HA: Central issues regarding the mechanisms of action of electroconvulsive therapy:
directions for future research. Psychopharmacol Bull 30(3):281–308, 1994 7878177
Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Devanand DP, et al: The impact of medication resistance and continua-
tion pharmacotherapy on relapse following response to electroconvulsive therapy in ma-
jor depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 10(2):96–104, 1990 2341598
Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Devanand DP, et al: Effects of stimulus intensity and electrode place-
ment on the efficacy and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy (see comments).
N Engl J Med 328(12):839–846, 1993 8441428
Sackeim HA, Devanand DP, Nobler M: Electroconvulsive therapy, in Psychopharmacology:
The Fourth Generation of Progress. Edited by Bllom FE, Kupfer DJ. New York, Raven,
1995, pp 1123–1142
Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Devanand DP, et al: A prospective, randomized, double-blind compar-
ison of bilateral and right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy at different stimulus inten-
sities (see comments). Arch Gen Psychiatry 57(5):425–434, 2000 10807482
Sackeim HA, Haskett RF, Mulsant BH, et al: Continuation pharmacotherapy in the prevention
of relapse following electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized controlled trial (see com-
ments). JAMA 285(10):1299–1307, 2001 11255384
Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Fuller R, et al: The cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy in com-
munity settings. Neuropsychopharmacology 32(1):244–254, 2007 16936712
Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Nobler MS, et al: Effects of pulse width and electrode placement on the
efficacy and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Brain Stimul 1(2):71–83, 2008
19756236
Sahlem GL, Short EB, Kerns S, et al: Expanded safety and efficacy data for a new method of per-
forming electroconvulsive therapy: focal electrically administered seizure therapy. J ECT
32(3):197–203, 2016 27379790
Scangos KW, Weiner RD, Coffey EC, et al: An electrophysiological biomarker that may predict
treatment response to ECT. J ECT 35(2):95–102, 2019 30531398
Shoirah H, Hamoda HM: Electroconvulsive therapy in children and adolescents. Expert Rev
Neurother 11(1):127–137, 2011 21158560
Sienaert P: Based on a true story? The portrayal of ECT in international movies and television
programs. Brain Stimul 9(6):882–891, 2016 27522170
Spellman T, Peterchev AV, Lisanby SH: Focal electrically administered seizure therapy: a novel
form of ECT illustrates the roles of current directionality, polarity, and electrode configu-
ration in seizure induction. Neuropsychopharmacolo
gy 34(8):2002–2010, 2009 19225453
-
-

315 Electroconvulsive Therapy
https://t.me/med1917
Spodniaková B, Halmo M, Nosáľová P: Electroconvulsive therapy in pregnancy—a review.
J Obstet Gynaecol 35(7):659–662, 2015 25526509
Steffens DC, Krystal AD, Sibert TE, et al: Cost effectiveness of maintenance ECT. Convuls Ther
11(4):283–284, 1995 8919583
Sun Y, Farzan F, Mulsant BH, et al: Indicators for remission of suicidal ideation following mag-
netic seizure therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression. JAMA Psychiatry
73(4):337–345, 2016 26981889
Taylor MA, Fink M: Catatonia in psychiatric classification: a home of its own. Am J Psychiatry
160(7):1233–1241, 2003 12832234
Tew JD Jr, Mulsant BH, Haskett RF, et al: Relapse during continuation pharmacotherapy after
acute response to ECT: a comparison of usual care versus protocolized treatment. Ann Clin
Psychiatry 19(1):1–4, 2007 17453654
Thase ME, Rush AJ: When at first you don’t succeed: sequential strategies for antidepressant
nonresponders. J Clin Psychiatry 58 (suppl 13):23–29, 1997 9402916
Tørring N, Sanghani SN, Petrides G, et al: The mortality rate of electroconvulsive therapy: a sys-
tematic review and pooled analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 135(5):388–397, 2017 28332236
Trenton A, Pelchat R: Medical students’ perceptions of electroconvulsive therapy: the impact
of direct exposure. J ECT 32(1):20–22, 2016 26075694
Unal A, Altindag A, Demir B, Aksoy I: The use of lorazepam and electroconvulsive therapy in
the treatment of catatonia: treatment characteristics and outcomes in 60 patients. J ECT
33(4):290–293, 2017 28640169
Valentí M, Benabarre A, García-Amador M, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of
mixed states in bipolar disorder. Eur Psychiatry 23(1):53–56, 2008 18191551
van Diermen L, van den Ameele S, Kamperman AM, et al: Prediction of electroconvulsive ther-
apy response and remission in major depression: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 212(2):71–
80, 2018 29436330
van Waarde JA, Scholte HS, van Oudheusden LJ, et al: A functional MRI marker may predict
the outcome of electroconvulsive therapy in severe and treatment-resistant depression.
Mol Psychiatry 20(5):609–614, 2015 25092248
Vieta E: Bipolar mixed states and their treatment. Expert Rev Neurother 5(1):63–68, 2005
15853475
Vukadin M, Birkenhäger TK, Wierdsma AI, et al: Post-dexamethasone cortisol as a predictor for
the efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy in depressed inpatients. J Psychiatr Res
45(9):1165–1169, 2011 21481419
Wachtel LE, Dhossche DM, Kellner CH: When is electroconvulsive therapy appropriate for
children and adolescents? Med Hypotheses 76(3):395–399, 2011 21129852
Ward HB, Fromson JA, Cooper JJ, et al: Recommendations for the use of ECT in pregnancy: lit-
erature review and proposed clinical protocol. Arch Women Ment Health 21(6):715–722,
2018 29796968
Watts BV, Groft A: Retrospective evaluation of the dexamethasone suppression test as a predic-
tor of response to electroconvulsive therapy in patients with comorbid major depressive
disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. J ECT 26(3):213–217, 2010 20386115
Watts BV, Groft A, Bagian JP, et al: An examination of mortality and other adverse events re-
lated to electroconvulsive therapy using a national adverse event report system. J ECT
27(2):105–108, 2011 20966769
Yao Z, McCall WV, Essali N, et al: Precision ECT for major depressive disorder: a review of clin-
ical factors, laboratory, and physiologic biomarkers as predictors of response and remission. Pers Med Psychiatry 17:23–31, 2019
Youssef NA, McCall WV: Relapse prevention after index electroconvulsive therapy in treat-
ment-resistant depression. Ann Clin Psychiatry 26(4):288–296, 2014 25401716
Yrondi A, Sporer M, Péran P, et al: Electroconvulsive therapy, depression, the immune system
and inflammation: a systematic review. Brain Stimul 11(1):29–51, 2018 29111078
Zhand N, Courtney DB, Flament MF: Use of ele
treatment-resistant depressive disorders: a case series. J ECT 31(4):238–245, 2015 25830809
ctroconvulsive therapy in adolescents with

https://t.me/med1917

CHAPTER 19
https://t.me/med1917
Transcranial Magnetic
Stimulation
Andrew M. Fukuda, M.D., Ph.D.
Brian C. Kavanaugh, Psy.D.
Shiwen Yuan, M.D.
Linda L. Carpenter, M.D.
As is evident throughout this textbook, major depressive disorder (MDD) is a
debilitating and widespread illness, with 19.4 million adults (18 years or older) in
2019 having at least one major depressive episode in the United States alone, according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration 2020). Although pharmacotherapy is successfully
able to treat many, a substantial portion of those with MDD have limited responses to
medications or develop intolerable side effects, so alternative treatment options are
necessary.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive method for therapeutic
modulation of brain activity. Although it has been increasingly used since 1985 (Barker
and Cain 1985; Barker et al. 1985) as a research tool to elucidate certain aspects of
brain function, TMS has been further developed and clinically utilized for treating patients with pharmacoresistant forms of MDD. Since the FDA cleared the first TMS device (Neuronetics, Malvern, Pennsylvania; 510[k] number: K083538) to treat MDD in
2008, multiple other devices have received regulatory approval for that same therapeutic indication. In 2018, a TMS device received the first FDA clearance for treatment
of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and a portable TMS device
was FDA-cleared for treatment of migraine in 2013. Clinical research continues to explore the potential for TMS to treat a broad array of neuropsychiatric disorders and
symptoms related to behavioral health, addiction, and overall wellness. However, the
focus of this chapter is the use of TMS for MDD.
317

318 The APA Publishing Textbook of Mood Disorders, Second Edition
https://t.me/med1917
What Is Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy?
Application of TMS requires the delivery of a pulsed magnetic field from a TMS “coil”
placed on the patient’s head. The coil contains multiple windings of copper wire (or
other material that conducts electricity) covered by a hard case and a cooling mecha
nism of some sort; electricity traveling through the coil in a fluctuating manner generates an electromagnetic field that is emitted from the coil and passes through skin,
bone, and other cranial tissues without impedance, subsequently exerting its effects on
the targeted regions of superficial cortex several centimeters below the surface. Con
sistent with Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction, pulsed magnetic fields from
the TMS coil induce an electrical current in a perpendicular plane in the underlying tis
sues, which translates to the firing of neuronal action potentials when the intensity is
at a certain threshold.
TMS coils can be constructed with internal windings in various shapes and sizes;
most TMS therapy devices use a simple figure-eight-shaped coil, but one manufac
turer has a system that uses larger and more complex coil geometries (known as Hesed or H-coils). Figure-eight coils deliver a stimulation that is fairly focal, whereas Hcoils activate a broader area of cortex. In stationary TMS device systems such as those
approved for MDD, one or more components provide electricity to the coil from a
standard power source, and an integrated computer allows the clinician to select parameters for the desired protocol. Some systems include, or are capable of integration
with, additional components to enhance their functionality, such as a robotic arm to
hold the coil on the patient’s head, gauges marking coordinates in multiple planes for
frameless stereotaxis, or tracking tools and software to guide placement of the coil to
a specific area on the patient’s scalp (or MRI-guided navigation to stimulate a specific
target in the patient’s brain).
Standard commercial TMS devices emit magnetic pulses with a strength similar to
that of a standard MRI scanner to patients who are awake and in a seated or reclined
position. With each pulse, the person receiving TMS experiences a mild percussive
sensation on the head underneath the coil, but this is generally well tolerated, and patients accommodate to it after several sessions (Borckardt et al. 2013). No anesthesia
or sedation is required, and patients drive themselves to and from their daily outpa
tient treatment sessions. Immediate physiological after-effects of a single TMS application last about 30 minutes, but a series of repeated sessions (typically 20–30 over 4–
6 weeks) is needed to produce enduring resolution of MDD symptoms.
Clinicians may choose from several parameters for delivering TMS therapy. Some of
these parameters relate to the targeted brain region; for MDD, the target is most often
the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), but evidence also exists for treatment
over the right DLPFC or midline areas of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Other parameters
describe the characteristics of the magnetic energy itself—that is, relative intensity
(strength of the magnetic field), frequency (number of magnetic pulses delivered per
second [Hz]), pulse pattern (e.g., standard “trains” of pulses at 10 Hz vs. very rapid
“bursts” or pulses delivered at a 5-Hz “carrier frequency”), and duration of the “rest”
times between the strings of TMS pulses. Additional clinically relevant treatment parameters relate to how many total pulses a patient is given in a single session, how
often the treatment sessions occur (typically once daily, 5 days per week), and how
-
-
-
-
-

319 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
https://t.me/med1917
many treatment weeks compose a standard course of acute therapy for the disorder
(typically 4–6 weeks, followed by additional treatments in a taper schedule).
Motor Threshold Procedure
One of the personalized-medicine features of TMS therapy relates to the fact that the
intensity of stimulation is individually customized and calibrated against each pa
tient’s unique level of cortical excitability. A standard procedure done on the first day
of a course of treatment involves finding the exact location on the patient’s scalp that
corresponds with the underlying spot in that patient’s primary motor cortex where
stimulation with a single TMS pulse generates the most robust response. With the correct placement, neurons connect, via corticospinal tracts and peripheral nerves, to
produce a motor-evoked potential (identified as a visible “twitch” or alternatively by
the peak amplitude of an evoked potential as measured by electromyogram) in the
muscles of the fingers on the contralateral hand. This location on the scalp, along with
the minimum intensity of magnetic energy required to elicit the contralateral muscle
response, together define the “motor threshold” (MT).
Finding the MT location and determining the MT level are the first steps in delivery of TMS; application of TMS therapy sessions without this step could adversely
impact both safety and efficacy because other treatment parameters are calibrated rel
ative to a patient’s MT. Data suggest no significant difference exists between MT levels determined by electromyogram and those determined by visual observation of a
muscle twitch (Badran et al. 2019), so most clinical TMS devices rely on the latter
method. MT level is the basis for knowing what intensity of stimulation is likely to
modulate the activity of cortical neurons in a patient’s brain. The FDA-cleared MDD
treatment protocols involve delivery of TMS at 120% intensity relative to the MT
level. This means that the intensity of all magnetic pulses targeting the PFC during a
treatment session is 20% higher than the minimal (threshold) intensity needed for a
single pulse to activate specific neurons in the patient’s motor cortex as determined
during the MT procedure on the first day.
The functional MT location on a patient’s scalp is also a parameter that may subsequently guide placement of the coil on another area of the scalp for treatment of depression. The MT location (defined as the motor cortex location that optimally activated
the contralateral thumb muscle or proximal hand muscles) is used by many to navigate the TMS coil to a scalp location (5–6 cm anteriorly in a parasagittal line) over the
DLPFC for therapeutic stimulation. Although this method for finding the scalp target
for delivery of stimulation to the left DLPFC was employed in all MDD regulatory tri
als, research has subsequently shown that fixed measurements from the MT location
are not consistently reliable for targeting that brain region (Herwig et al. 2001).
-
-
-
Use in Pharmacoresistant Major Depressive
Disorder
At present, FDA-cleared TMS devices for MDD are specifically indicated for use in
patients whose illness has failed to respond to at least one antidepressant medication

320 The APA Publishing Textbook of Mood Disorders, Second Edition
https://t.me/med1917
trial during the current depressive episode (hereafter referred to as treatment-resistant
depression, or TRD). The first FDA clearance (in 2008) for a TMS device (with figureeight coil) followed a series of regulatory trials by Neuronetics. Results of a large reg
ulatory trial using an H-coil TMS device by BrainsWay (Jerusalem, Israel) generated
the second FDA clearance for MDD in 2013. Since then, other device manufacturers
have sought and achieved FDA clearance to market their TMS devices in the United
States without conducting any new regulatory clinical trials; these approvals have
been based on demonstration of technical equivalence to the Neuronetics device—that
is, having similar figure-eight coils and stimulation features.
The TMS parameters and protocols for TRD used in the two major industry-sponsored sham-controlled regulatory trials (Neuronetics and BrainsWay) consisted of
high-frequency (10 Hz and 18 Hz, respectively) pulses administered in short trains (4
and 2 seconds, respectively) at an intensity that was 120% of the patient’s MT, inter
spersed with rest periods without any stimulation (20 and 26 seconds, respectively).
The targeted area of the brain was the left DLPFC, although the broad area covered
by the H-coils also delivered some stimulation to the right DLPFC. Treatment sessions were given 5 days per week for 4–6 weeks. Because large samples were used to
demonstrate efficacy and safety in randomized, sham-controlled trials that employed
rigorous and standardized methods across multiple study sites, these parameters define the “doses” of TMS that are considered to have the strongest evidence base for
clinical care.
Numerous other TMS clinical trials investigating different parameters or approaches to TMS therapy have also been published, both before and after the two
seminal FDA approvals. Several studies employing alternate designs (e.g., prospec
tive open-label trials, randomized noninferiority trials, naturalistic treatment studies,
and meta-analyses of pooled data from multiple smaller studies) provide varying de
grees of compelling evidence that it is also safe and efficacious to administer TMS using various different stimulation parameters. Some of these have resulted in revision
or extension of the original FDA-approved “labels” and now appear in the official
“indication for use” documents associated with individual TMS devices. Results from
several key investigations shaping the current evidence base for TMS to treat MDD
are summarized in the discussion that follows.
-
-
-
-
Acute Efficacy
Three double-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes in
groups receiving either active or sham treatments played pivotal roles in the establishment of TMS as an effective acute therapy for MDD. O’Reardon et al. (2007) reported
acute-phase results of the Neuronetics-sponsored RCT that took place at 23 interna
tional sites (in the United States, Canada, and Australia) and included 301 medicationfree patients. Both response and remission rates were significantly higher in the active
group (24% response and 17% remission, respectively) compared with the sham-treatment group (15% response and 8% remission, respectively) after 6 weeks of treatment
(30 sessions).
Results of a subsequent RCT funded by NIMH and without industry sponsorship
was published in 2010 by George et al. (2010). Neuronetics’ TMS devices (which have
-

321 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
https://t.me/med1917
figure-eight-shaped coils) were donated to four university study sites where treatments were delivered using the same stimulation parameters reported by O’Reardon
et al. (2007) during the blinded acute phase (n=190). Unique features of this study in
cluded a variable-length blinded phase (continuation beyond 3 weeks was contingent
on threshold clinical improvement) and brain MRI evaluation to determine whether
the position of the coil should be advanced anteriorly by another 1 cm (beyond the
spot found, 5 cm anterior to the MT location) to target the left DLPFC. Activation of
face and scalp muscles with small electrodes during stimulation trains was a method
used to make the sham TMS feel more like active TMS and thus optimize the blinding.
The response rate was 15% and remission rate 14% for the group treated with active
TMS, whereas only 5% of sham-treated patient outcomes achieved both response and
remission. The odds for remitting with active stimulation were 4.2 times greater than
for remitting with sham (George et al. 2010).
A third clinical trial of marked importance in establishing TMS clinical efficacy for
MDD was the pivotal RCT sponsored by BrainsWay (Levkovitz et al. 2015) using Hcoil devices targeting the bilateral (predominantly left, but also right) DLPFCs in 212
patients with TRD at 20 different study sites across four countries. After 4 weeks (20
sessions), all participants transitioned to a schedule of two sessions per week for another 12 weeks, during which they received the same (blinded) active or sham stimulation. Acute-phase response and remission rates at week 5 (after 22 sessions) were
significantly higher in the active group (37% and 30%, respectively) than for shamtreated subjects (28% and 16%, respectively). These results supported FDA clearance
of the BrainsWay H-coil TMS device for TRD.
Following FDA clearance of the Neuronetics device and its early uptake by clinical
practices, a large multisite naturalistic treatment study confirmed similar efficacy for
patients with MDD who were treated outside of research protocols with the device
(Carpenter et al. 2012). This study reflected “real-life” TMS clinical practice, where
most patients are taking one or more antidepressant or other psychotropic medica
tions at the time of referral and remain on concurrent medication during the TMS
treatment course. Outcomes for 307 patients (whose treatment costs were supported
by their health insurance or through self-pay) across 42 clinics demonstrated that
about half (42%–58%, depending on which scale is used) of patients were responders
(defined by at least 50% improvement from baseline) and approximately one-third
reached the threshold scores for remission (27%–37% across three measures). These
findings were largely consistent with other open-label data, such as the crossover
phase in the Neuronetics regulatory trial (Avery et al. 2008).
Despite the apparent consistency of positive results across regulatory RCTs and
naturalistic and open trials, a recent RCT investigating TMS in 164 U.S. veterans with
TRD failed to demonstrate statistical superiority of active stimulation over sham
TMS. Following 20–30 sessions (4–6 weeks) of blinded 10-Hz TMS sessions delivered
by a figure-eight coil device, remission was achieved by 41% of those randomized to
the active group and 37% randomized to the sham group (Yesavage et al. 2018). Comorbid PTSD emerged as a slight moderator of inferior outcomes, but the authors
speculated that a high sham response rate in this study was likely attributable to the
frequent contact veteran participants had with study personnel and other clinicians
who not only monitored their participation in the trial’s procedures but also enforced
adherence to concurrent psychiatric medications.
-
-
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
