Controlled investigation of the amobarbital interview for catatonic mutism

William Vaughn McCall, Frank E. Shelp, William M. McDonald

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Clinical reports over the last 60 years suggest that the amobarbital interview is effective in relieving catatonic symptoms. This has never been substantiated with methodologically sound trials. The authors postulated that a randomized blind comparison of intravenous amobarbital and saline would demonstrate the superiority of amobarbital in relieving catatonic mutism. Method: The subjects were 20 inpatients with catatonic mutism. They were randomly assigned to either saline (N=l 0) or a 5% amobarbital solution (N=10), and the infusions were administered intravenously at a rate of 1 cc/min or less over 10 minutes by a blinded physician. A second blinded physician administered a semistructured interview during the infusion to control for the effect of suggestion. A third blinded physician rated patient responsiveness, reactivity, and arousal. Any patient who was unresponsive to the initial infusion was crossed over to the other infusion. Interviews were videotaped for determination of interrater reliability. Results: In the initial infusions, six of 10 patients responded to amobarbital and zero of 10 responded to saline. Four of the saline nonresponders responded when given amobarbital. Response was evident by the 4th minute of the amobarbital infusion. Interrater reliability was high. The responders and nonresponders differed significantly in the variance of the weight-adjusted amobarbital dose, and the responders tended to be older and female. Conclusions: Intravenous amobarbital is superior to saline in relieving catatonic mutism, although only 50% of these patients responded. The nonresponders were distinguished from the responders by a greater variance in the weight-adjusted dose of amobarbital.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)202-206
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Psychiatry
Volume149
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

Fingerprint

Mutism
Amobarbital
Interviews
Physicians
Weights and Measures
Arousal
Inpatients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Controlled investigation of the amobarbital interview for catatonic mutism. / McCall, William Vaughn; Shelp, Frank E.; McDonald, William M.

In: American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 149, No. 2, 01.01.1992, p. 202-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCall, William Vaughn ; Shelp, Frank E. ; McDonald, William M. / Controlled investigation of the amobarbital interview for catatonic mutism. In: American Journal of Psychiatry. 1992 ; Vol. 149, No. 2. pp. 202-206.
@article{ecba67eeaf094db9a3ef4535db286e8a,
title = "Controlled investigation of the amobarbital interview for catatonic mutism",
abstract = "Objective: Clinical reports over the last 60 years suggest that the amobarbital interview is effective in relieving catatonic symptoms. This has never been substantiated with methodologically sound trials. The authors postulated that a randomized blind comparison of intravenous amobarbital and saline would demonstrate the superiority of amobarbital in relieving catatonic mutism. Method: The subjects were 20 inpatients with catatonic mutism. They were randomly assigned to either saline (N=l 0) or a 5{\%} amobarbital solution (N=10), and the infusions were administered intravenously at a rate of 1 cc/min or less over 10 minutes by a blinded physician. A second blinded physician administered a semistructured interview during the infusion to control for the effect of suggestion. A third blinded physician rated patient responsiveness, reactivity, and arousal. Any patient who was unresponsive to the initial infusion was crossed over to the other infusion. Interviews were videotaped for determination of interrater reliability. Results: In the initial infusions, six of 10 patients responded to amobarbital and zero of 10 responded to saline. Four of the saline nonresponders responded when given amobarbital. Response was evident by the 4th minute of the amobarbital infusion. Interrater reliability was high. The responders and nonresponders differed significantly in the variance of the weight-adjusted amobarbital dose, and the responders tended to be older and female. Conclusions: Intravenous amobarbital is superior to saline in relieving catatonic mutism, although only 50{\%} of these patients responded. The nonresponders were distinguished from the responders by a greater variance in the weight-adjusted dose of amobarbital.",
author = "McCall, {William Vaughn} and Shelp, {Frank E.} and McDonald, {William M.}",
year = "1992",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1176/ajp.149.2.202",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "149",
pages = "202--206",
journal = "American Journal of Psychiatry",
issn = "0002-953X",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Controlled investigation of the amobarbital interview for catatonic mutism

AU - McCall, William Vaughn

AU - Shelp, Frank E.

AU - McDonald, William M.

PY - 1992/1/1

Y1 - 1992/1/1

N2 - Objective: Clinical reports over the last 60 years suggest that the amobarbital interview is effective in relieving catatonic symptoms. This has never been substantiated with methodologically sound trials. The authors postulated that a randomized blind comparison of intravenous amobarbital and saline would demonstrate the superiority of amobarbital in relieving catatonic mutism. Method: The subjects were 20 inpatients with catatonic mutism. They were randomly assigned to either saline (N=l 0) or a 5% amobarbital solution (N=10), and the infusions were administered intravenously at a rate of 1 cc/min or less over 10 minutes by a blinded physician. A second blinded physician administered a semistructured interview during the infusion to control for the effect of suggestion. A third blinded physician rated patient responsiveness, reactivity, and arousal. Any patient who was unresponsive to the initial infusion was crossed over to the other infusion. Interviews were videotaped for determination of interrater reliability. Results: In the initial infusions, six of 10 patients responded to amobarbital and zero of 10 responded to saline. Four of the saline nonresponders responded when given amobarbital. Response was evident by the 4th minute of the amobarbital infusion. Interrater reliability was high. The responders and nonresponders differed significantly in the variance of the weight-adjusted amobarbital dose, and the responders tended to be older and female. Conclusions: Intravenous amobarbital is superior to saline in relieving catatonic mutism, although only 50% of these patients responded. The nonresponders were distinguished from the responders by a greater variance in the weight-adjusted dose of amobarbital.

AB - Objective: Clinical reports over the last 60 years suggest that the amobarbital interview is effective in relieving catatonic symptoms. This has never been substantiated with methodologically sound trials. The authors postulated that a randomized blind comparison of intravenous amobarbital and saline would demonstrate the superiority of amobarbital in relieving catatonic mutism. Method: The subjects were 20 inpatients with catatonic mutism. They were randomly assigned to either saline (N=l 0) or a 5% amobarbital solution (N=10), and the infusions were administered intravenously at a rate of 1 cc/min or less over 10 minutes by a blinded physician. A second blinded physician administered a semistructured interview during the infusion to control for the effect of suggestion. A third blinded physician rated patient responsiveness, reactivity, and arousal. Any patient who was unresponsive to the initial infusion was crossed over to the other infusion. Interviews were videotaped for determination of interrater reliability. Results: In the initial infusions, six of 10 patients responded to amobarbital and zero of 10 responded to saline. Four of the saline nonresponders responded when given amobarbital. Response was evident by the 4th minute of the amobarbital infusion. Interrater reliability was high. The responders and nonresponders differed significantly in the variance of the weight-adjusted amobarbital dose, and the responders tended to be older and female. Conclusions: Intravenous amobarbital is superior to saline in relieving catatonic mutism, although only 50% of these patients responded. The nonresponders were distinguished from the responders by a greater variance in the weight-adjusted dose of amobarbital.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026541230&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026541230&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/ajp.149.2.202

DO - 10.1176/ajp.149.2.202

M3 - Article

VL - 149

SP - 202

EP - 206

JO - American Journal of Psychiatry

JF - American Journal of Psychiatry

SN - 0002-953X

IS - 2

ER -