Examine pre-existing learning disorders (LD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) as risk factors for prolonged recovery and increased symptomology following pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children/adolescents (5-17 years) with mTBI who presented to a Children’s Minnesota Concussion Clinic between April 2018 and March 2019. Differences across strata of pre-existing conditions (present vs. absent) in time to recovery measures were estimated via Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses and differences in symptom trajectories were examined via linear mixed-effects regression models. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex and other confounders.

In our cohort of 680 mTBI patients, those with LD (n = 70) or ADHD (n = 107) experienced significantly longer median durations of symptoms (58 and 68 days, respectively) than those without (43 days). Accordingly, LD was significantly associated with delayed symptom recovery (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.16–2.29), return to school (1.47, 1.08–2.00), and return to physical activity (1.50, 1.10–2.04). Likewise, ADHD was associated with delayed recovery (1.69, 1.28–2.23), return to school (1.52, 1.17–1.97) and physical activity (1.55, 1.19–2.01). Further, patients with LD or ADHD reported, on average, significantly more concussion symptoms and higher vision symptom scores throughout recovery versus those without. There was no evidence that concussion or vision symptom recovery trajectories varied over time between those with/without LD or ADHD (joint P-interactions > 0.05).

Pre-existing LD and ADHD are risk factors for prolonged and more symptomatic mTBI recovery in youth. These results can inform clinical concussion management and recovery expectations.

Reduction of the pulse width has been reported to improve ECT outcomes with unilateral ECT (similar efficacy, fewer cognitive side effects), but has been minimally studied for bitemporal ECT. The only study comparing brief and ultrabrief pulse bitemporal ECT found reduced efficacy for bitemporal ultrabrief compared to bitemporal brief pulse stimulation. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to test if ultrabrief pulse bitemporal ECT results in fewer cognitive side effects than brief pulse bitemporal ECT, when given at doses adjusted with the aim of achieving comparable efficacy.

Thirty-six participants were randomly assigned to receive ultrabrief (at 3 times seizure threshold) or brief (at 1.5 times seizure threshold) pulse bitemporal ECT given 3 times a week in a double-blind, controlled proof-of-concept trial. Blinded raters assessed mood and cognitive functioning over the ECT course.

Efficacy and cognitive outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups over the ECT course. The ultrabrief pulse group performed better on a test of visual memory assessed acutely after an ECT treatment.

This study suggests there may be a small cognitive advantage in giving bitemporal ECT with an ultrabrief pulse when dosage is increased to match the efficacy of brief pulse bitemporal ECT, but the study was underpowered to fully examine this issue.

Clinical Trials Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00870805.