Background: We have investigated the efficacy of high-frequency left (HFL) versus low-frequency right (LFR) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in depression, focusing on specific symptoms as possible predictors of outcome for these two different types of stimulation. Method: Seventy-four outpatients with a major depressive episode treated with an adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 4 weeks were included in our study and randomly assigned to two different groups: HFL or LFR rTMS. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) items were pooled into 6 factors to evaluate specific symptoms as possible predictors of response. Results: Twenty-one out of 32 patients (65.6%) and 24 out of 42 patients (57.1%) were responders in the HFL and LFR groups, respectively. No significant difference in response rate was observed. Considering the whole sample, we found an inverse correlation between activity and HAM-D score reduction and a significant positive relation between somatic anxiety and outcome. An inverse correlation between psychic anxiety and HAM-D score reduction emerged considering the HFL group. In the LFR group, there was a significant negative relationship between baseline activity and the outcome. Conclusion: These findings support the hypothesis that LFR rTMS could be as effective as HFL rTMS and more suitable for patients with a higher anxiety degree, particularly in bipolar patients.

Keywords:
Transcranial magnetic stimulation, Major depression, Bipolar disorder, Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.