已发表论文

改良电休克治疗患者喉咽反流的发生率及危险因素:一项前瞻性观察研究

 

Authors Mo X, Li X, Zheng T, Hu J , Chen C, Zhou S

Received 28 July 2025

Accepted for publication 13 November 2025

Published 12 December 2025 Volume 2025:21 Pages 1689—1700

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S549412

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Professor De Yun Wang

Xingying Mo,1,* Xiaoyue Li,2,* Tingwei Zheng,1 Jingping Hu,1 Chaojin Chen,1 Shaoli Zhou1 

1Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Shaoli Zhou, Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Email 13610272308@139.com Chaojin Chen, Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Email chenchj28@mail.sysu.edu.cn

Background: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is among the most common complications associated with modified electroconvulsive therapy (MECT). The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of LPR among patients undergoing MECT and to identify risk factors for LPR within this population.
Methods: This observational prospective study enrolled 107 consecutive patients who underwent MECT at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. Data regarding potential risk factors for LPR in patients undergoing MECT were collected. The salivary pepsin test was used to diagnose LPR.
Results: The incidence of LPR was 39.3% in this study. On univariate analysis, height (p = 0.040), history of acid regurgitation (p = 0.19), number of MECT session number (p = 0.014), succinylcholine dose (p = 0.032), and oral secretion volume (p = 0.01) were significantly associated with LPR. Outcomes from the multivariate analysis are shown as odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval (CI)]), > 3 MECT sessions (3.02 [1.20– 7.58]), history of acid regurgitation (3.90 [1.20– 12.70]), succinylcholine dose > 50 mg (2.54 [1.04– 6.22]), oral secretion volume > 3 mL (3.66 [1.50– 8.97]) were significantly and independently associated with the development of LPR.
Conclusion: A history of acid regurgitation, > 3 MECT sessions, succinylcholine dose > 50 mg, oral secretion volume > 3 mL was significantly associated with an increased risk of LPR in patients undergoing MECT.

Keywords: LPR, MECT, risk factors, salivary pepsin test