Munk-Olsen et al (2007) reported that the mortality rate from natural causes was lower for patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) than for other psychiatric in-patients. The lower relative risk was particularly significant for mortality linked to respiratory disease (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.55–0.95) and a trend was founded for cardiovascular disease (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.70–1.03).
The authors concluded that this decreased risk of mortality from natural causes is unlikely to be the result of a selection bias. They based this statement on: (a) the absence of absolute contraindications to ECT in the international guidelines; and (b) the concordant findings of previous studies.
At variance with this statement, clinical practice suggests that psychiatrists are generally reluctant to consider ECT in patients with medical illness, and are more likely to ask for the opinion of a colleague in such a case (e.g. anaesthetist, cardiologist) (Benbow & Shah, 2002).
Thus, patients with severe medical illness could be less likely to be treated by ECT. Furthermore, identification of cardiovascular diseases or pulmonary disorders, as well as physical examination and standard laboratory tests are part of a systematic screening procedure before ECT. This practice improves the diagnosis and the treatment of medical comorbidities. Indeed, the absence of such preliminary medical examination led to a high level of cardiac complications after ECT in the past (Gerring & Shields, 1982).
Accordingly current guidelines emphasise the importance of identifying and carefully managing patients with risk factors before, during and after ECT, as well as assessing the risks associated with anaesthesia (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003). Patients receiving ECT are therefore not representative of all psychiatric in-patients. The careful assessment and treatment of their physical comorbidities contrasts with the increased rate of untreated physical illness in psychiatric patients, mostly because of inadequate somatic care in psychiatric units (Rasanen et al, 2006).
Therefore, the observed diminution of mortality from natural causes in patients with ECT is more likely to be related to appropriate medical assessment and treatment than to a direct effect of ECT on physical health.
REFERENCES
Benbow, S. M. & Shah, A. (2002) A survey of the views of geriatric psychiatrists in the United Kingdom on the use of electroconvulsive therapy to treat physically ill people. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 956 –961.
Gerring, J. P. & Shields, H. M. (1982) The identification and management of patients with a high risk for cardiac arrhythmias during modified ECT. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 43, 140 –143.
Munk-Olsen, T., Laursen, T. M., Videbech, P., et al (2007) All-cause mortality among recipients of electroconvulsive therapy. Register-based cohort study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 435 –439.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003) The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) for Depressive Illness, Schizophrenia, Catatonia and Mania. NICE.
Rasanen, S., Meyer-Rochow, V. B., Moring, J., et al (2006) Hospital-treated physical illnesses and mortality: an 11-year follow-up study of long-stay psychiatric patients. European Psychiatry, 22, 211 –218.
