The field of view (FOV) considered in MRI-guided forward models of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are, as expected, limited to the MRI volume collected. Therefore, there is variation in model extent considered across simulation efforts. This study examines the impact of FOV on the induced electric field (E-field) due to two common electrode placements: right unilateral (RUL) and bilateral (BL).
A full-body dataset was obtained and processed for modeling relevant to ECT physics. Multiple extents were derived by truncating from the head down to four levels: upper head (whole-brain), full head, neck, and torso. All relevant stimulation and focality metrics were determined. The differences in the 99th percentile peak of stimulation strength in the brain between each extent to the full-body (reference) model were considered as the relative error (RE). We also determine the FOV beyond which the difference to a full-body model would be negligible.
The 2D and 3D spatial plots revealed anticipated results in line with prior efforts. The RE for BL upper head was ~50% reducing to ~2% for the neck FOV. The RE for RUL upper head was ~5% reducing to subpercentage (0.28%) for the full-head FOV. As shown previously, BL was found to stimulate a larger brain volume—but restricted to the upper head and for amplitude up to ~480 mA. To some extent, RUL stimulated a larger volume. The RUL-induced volume was larger even when considering the neural activation threshold corresponding to brief pulse BL if ECT amplitude was >270 mA. This finding is explained by the BL-induced current loss through the inferior regions as more FOV is considered. Our result is a departure from prior efforts and raises questions about the focality metric as defined and/or inter-individual differences.
Our findings highlight that BL is impacted more than RUL with respect to FOV. It is imperative to collect full-head data at a minimum for any BL simulation and possibly more. Clinical practice resorts to using BL ECT when RUL is unsuccessful. However, the notion that BL is more efficacious on the premise of stimulating more brain volume needs to be revisited.