BACKGROUND: We tested whether transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is effective and safe in the acute treatment of major depression. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite study, 301 medication-free patients with major depression who had not benefited from prior treatment were randomized to active (n = 155) or sham TMS (n = 146) conditions. Sessions were conducted five times per week with TMS at 10 pulses/sec, 120% of motor threshold, 3000 pulses/session, for 4-6 weeks. Primary outcome was the symptom score change as assessed at week 4 with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcomes included changes on the 17- and 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and response and remission rates with the MADRS and HAMD. RESULTS: Active TMS was significantly superior to sham TMS on the MADRS at week 4 (with a post hoc correction for inequality in symptom severity between groups at baseline), as well as on the HAMD17 and HAMD24 scales at weeks 4 and 6. Response rates were significantly higher with active TMS on all three scales at weeks 4 and 6. Remission rates were approximately twofold higher with active TMS at week 6 and significant on the MADRS and HAMD24 scales (but not the HAMD17 scale). Active TMS was well tolerated with a low dropout rate for adverse events (4.5%) that were generally mild and limited to transient scalp discomfort or pain. CONCLUSIONS: Transcranial magnetic stimulation was effective in treating major depression with minimal side effects reported. It offers clinicians a novel alternative for the treatment of this disorder. 相似文献
This audit has been conducted in order to provide an evidence base that clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of acute pain management at a UK hospital. Consequently, it sets the strategic direction for service improvement. Awarding up to three stars has identified the quality of each component that constitutes the acute pain service. Six different components were audited and star ratings have been awarded as shown below:
• Pain tool (including patient and staff understanding): no stars.
• Pain team (including education and clinical support): two stars.
• Intermittent opioid analgesia (sub-cut and oral morphine): two stars.
• Epidural patient controlled analgesia (EPCA): two stars.
• Intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IVPCA): two stars.
• Single-dose intrathecal opioid analgesia: three stars.
These star ratings were pulled together in order to award the acute pain service an overall rating. Consequently, the acute pain service was awarded two stars. The findings of this audit identify that this acute pain service provides a safe way to deliver hi-tech pain relief at ward level and can be relied upon to provide good quality pain management. However, too many patients are likely to miss out on the full benefits of the service due to the weaknesses as identified. The quality of the pain relief is impeded across the hospital due to low patient expectation and poor patient education, and also due to a lack of relevant knowledge amongst nursing staff. Developments in the role of the acute pain nurse, staff training and education programs, and a reduction in the variety of pain management pumps are combining to facilitate the opportunities required to address the weaknesses and to build on the strengths of the acute pain service. 相似文献