Safety and tolerability of IV ketamine in adults with major depressive or bipolar disorder: results from the Canadian rapid treatment center of excellence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Rigorous clinical trials suggest ketamine is safe and well-tolerated in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). There is a paucity of data on the safety and tolerability of ketamine in community-based clinics treating patients with TRD. METHODS: Retrospective data was analyzed from 203 patients with TRD who received repeat-dose IV ketamine. Safety was operationalized as hemodynamic changes. Tolerability was evaluated through the reporting of adverse events and dissociation symptom severity, as measured by the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale. RESULTS: Ketamine was well-tolerated, with less than 5% of patients withdrawing due to tolerability concerns. Blood pressure significantly increased during infusion, with 44.3% meeting criteria for treatment-emergent hypertension (i.e., blood pressure ≥ 165/100 mmHg). 12% of patients exhibiting hypertension required pharmacological intervention. The most frequently reported adverse events included drowsiness (56.4%), dizziness (45.2%), dissociation (35.6%), and nausea (13.3%). Dissociation severity significantly attenuated after the first infusion, but plateaued for subsequent infusions. CONCLUSION: Intravenous ketamine was safe and well-tolerated. Hypertension was commonly observed and was often transient. Dissociation was most frequently reported after the first infusion but remained a consistent but not treatment-limiting adverse event thereafter. No patients exhibited psychosis, mania, or new onset suicidality with IV ketamine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".