Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Right unilateral and bitemporal ECT show similar symptom improvement in resistant schizophreniaFor resistant schizophrenia, does one electric shock method work better than another?

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider RUS ECT's lower stimulus need and cognitive profile in resistant schizophrenia, but evidence is preliminary.

A randomized controlled trial compared two electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) electrode placements in 17 patients with resistant schizophrenia: right unilateral stimulation (RUS) versus bitemporal stimulation (BTS). The primary outcome was not reported; secondary outcomes included symptomatic changes, side effects, and cognitive performance. Both groups showed significant symptom improvement on the PANSS scale (BTS Δ44.75 vs. RUS Δ39.11, p=0.724), with response rates of 75% (6/8) for BTS and 44.4% (4/9) for RUS (p=0.335), indicating no statistically significant difference in efficacy.

RUS required significantly lower stimulus intensity to induce seizures (29.8 mC vs. 54 mC, p=0.003). Cognitive assessments revealed a statistically significant deterioration in verbal fluency in the BTS group (p=0.042) and an improvement in motor speed in the RUS group (p=0.046), though no global cognitive differences were detected between groups. Safety and tolerability data were not reported.

Key limitations include the very small sample size of 17 patients, lack of power calculation, and unspecified methodological limitations. The authors describe this as an exploratory study showing association only. These preliminary results with methodological limitations cannot establish definitive superiority of one technique. In clinical practice, both techniques appear similarly effective for symptom reduction in this population, but RUS may offer potential advantages in requiring lower stimulus and showing less deterioration in specific cognitive domains, though these findings require confirmation in larger, more robust studies.

Imagine a person struggling with schizophrenia who has not found relief from standard medications. Now imagine two different ways to use electricity to help their brain. A small study looked at whether the right-sided method, called right unilateral stimulation, was better than the traditional two-sided method, called bitemporal stimulation. Only 17 patients took part in this trial. Both groups saw their symptoms get better, with no clear winner for overall improvement. However, the right-sided method needed much less electrical power to work. It also seemed to protect against a specific type of mental slowing that sometimes happens after treatment.

But there are important reasons to be cautious. The study involved very few people, which makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. The researchers admitted the study lacked a proper calculation for how many people were needed to be sure of the results. While the right-sided method looked promising for needing less energy and causing less mental decline, we cannot say it is definitively superior yet. These findings are preliminary and exploratory.

For doctors and patients, the message is that both techniques reduce symptoms equally well. However, the right-sided method could offer advantages because it requires less load and is linked to less deterioration in verbal fluency. This means patients might feel less mentally slowed down. But remember, this is early evidence with methodological limits, so it should not change practice without more proof.

What this means for you:
Both shock methods work similarly for symptoms, but the right-sided method uses less energy and causes less mental slowing.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 8
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
INTRODUCTION: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for resistant schizophrenia, although debate persists about the optimal electrode placement technique. Bitemporal stimulation (BTS) is the most commonly used, while right unilateral stimulation (RUS) is associated with fewer cognitive effects in other disorders. METHODS: Exploratory study including 17 patients randomized to BTS (n = 8) or RUS (n = 9). Symptoms and severity were assessed with the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, cognitive functions with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Brief Assessment of Cognitive in Schizophrenia (BACS). Symptomatic changes, frequency and time of onset of side effects, changes in cognitive performance, and specific functions were compared. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in symptoms (ΔPANSS: BTS = 44.75 vs. RUS = 39.11; p = 0.724), with no differences in response rates (75% BTS vs. 44.4% RUS; p = 0.335). RUS required a lower stimulus to induce seizures (29.8 mC vs. 54 mC in BTS; p = 0.003). The BTS group showed deterioration in verbal fluency (BACS: p = 0.042), while the RUS showed improvement in motor speed (p = 0.046). There were no global differences in MoCA or BACS. CONCLUSION: Both techniques are equally effective in symptomatic reduction, but RUS could offer advantages as it requires less load and is associated with less deterioration in verbal fluency. These preliminary results have methodological limitations, mainly the sample size and lack of power calculation, but they may encourage further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06972745.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.