Menu
Recruiting NCT07534475

Venous Tourniquet vs. Arterial Tourniquet for Seizure Monitoring in ECT

No phase Interventional Major Depressive Disorder Bipolar Disorder Schizophrenia

For patients and families

In plain language

An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.

What is being studied
The protocol lists: Device: Arterial Tourniquet, Device: Venous Tourniquet, Sugammadex.
Who it may be relevant to
Registry conditions: Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia. Basic parameters: 18 years — 65 years · All.
What needs checking
Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
Where it takes place
Turkey (Türkiye)
Next step
Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →

Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →

Official title

Comparison of Venous Tourniquet Method With Isolated Forearm Technique in Electroconvulsive Therapy in Terms of Efficacy and Safety

Overview

This prospective, open-label clinical trial aims to compare a novel "Venous Tourniquet with Regional Low-Dose Sugammadex" method against the gold standard "Arterial Tourniquet" (Isolated Forearm Technique - IFT) for monitoring motor seizure activity during Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). Using a within-subject (intra-individual) design, each of the 40 enrolled patients will receive an arterial tourniquet on one arm and a venous tourniquet on the other arm simultaneously. The study will evaluate clinical efficacy in observing motor seizures, comparing the duration and visibility between the two limbs of the same patient, as well as assessing overall patient comfort and hemodynamics.

Detailed description

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) requires general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade to prevent musculoskeletal injuries during induced seizures. However, systemic paralysis masks the motor seizure activity, which is the primary indicator of an adequate seizure. The gold standard for seizure monitoring is the Isolated Forearm Technique (IFT), which involves applying a high-pressure arterial tourniquet (\>250 mmHg) before muscle relaxant administration. While effective, IFT can cause ischemic pain, sympathetic activation (hypertension, tachycardia), and requires specialized equipment.

This study investigates an alternative approach using a within-subject design. After systemic neuromuscular blockade (rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg) is established, an arterial tourniquet is applied to one arm (control limb), while a standard venous tourniquet (70 mmHg) is applied to the contralateral arm (experimental limb) followed by a regional IV injection of low-dose (0.3 mg/kg) sugammadex. This localized reversal aims to restore muscle function solely in the isolated limb. By evaluating both methods simultaneously on the same patient, the study eliminates inter-individual biological variability, allowing for a highly reliable comparison of motor seizure visibility, duration, and local complication rates between the arterial and venous tourniquet methods.

Interventions

  • Device Device: Arterial Tourniquet
    Within the same patient, the arm without intravenous access is fitted with an arterial tourniquet (\>250 mmHg or 100 mmHg above systolic BP) before the systemic administration of 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium.
  • Device Device: Venous Tourniquet
    Within the same patient, the arm with intravenous access receives a venous tourniquet (elastic or 70 mmHg) after systemic rocuronium administration, followed by a regional IV injection of 0.3 mg/kg sugammadex (diluted in 20 ml saline) into that specific limb.
  • Drug Sugammadex
    Regional IV injection of 0.3 mg/kg sugammadex into the experimental limb.

Primary outcome measures

  • Motor Seizure Duration [Time frame: From the initiation of the ECT electrical stimulus until the complete cessation of visible motor seizure activity in the limbs, assessed up to a maximum of 5 minutes.]
Secondary outcome measures (4)
  • Patient Pain Score (Numeric Rating Scale - NRS) [Time frame: At exactly 30 minutes after the completion of the ECT procedure in the recovery room.]
  • Hemodynamic Changes: Heart Rate [Time frame: Evaluated at 3 specific time points: Baseline (1 minute prior to anesthesia induction), exactly 2 minutes after tourniquet inflation, and 1 minute after the cessation of the ECT motor seizure.]
  • Hemodynamic Changes: Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) [Time frame: Evaluated at 3 specific time points: Baseline (1 minute prior to anesthesia induction), exactly 2 minutes after tourniquet inflation, and 1 minute after the cessation of the ECT motor seizure.]
  • Incidence of Local Tourniquet Complications [Time frame: At 1 hour after the completion of the ECT procedure, before discharge from the recovery area.]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients scheduled for elective Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT).
  • ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I to III.

Exclusion criteria

  • Known neuromuscular diseases (e.g., Myasthenia Gravis).
  • Known allergy or hypersensitivity to sugammadex, rocuronium, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, or propofol.
  • Presence of venous insufficiency, lymphedema, or active infection in the upper extremities.
  • Severe cardiovascular instability.

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation
N/A
Model
Single group
Masking
Open label
Primary purpose
Diagnostic

Study locations

Turkey (Türkiye) · 1 center
  • Istanbul Medipol University — Istanbul

Identifiers

NCT: NCT07534475 · 273 2026

Primary sources (government registries)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗