Objective To investigate the clinical effect and safety of EEG biofeedback therapy combined with mirtazapine in the treatment of depressive disorder.Methods 124 patients with depressive disorder were selected and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group,62 cases in each group.The control group was given mirtazapine treatment,while the observation group was given EEG biofeedback therapy combined with mirtazapine.All the two groups were treated for 8 weeks.Before and 2,4,8 weeks after treatment,the clinical effects in the two groups were evaluated by Hamilton depression scale (HAMD),Montgomerie depression rating scale (MADRS) and the clinical global impression scale (CGI).The side effects scale(TESS) assessment was used to assess the side effects.And the serum norepinephrine (NE),5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and dopamine (DA) levels were measured before and 8 weeks after treatment.Results The total effective rate of the observation group was 87.5％,which was significantly higher than 66.1％ in the control group (x2 =7.213,P ＜ 0.05).In the two groups,2,4,8 weeks after treatment,the HAMD scores were significantly lower than those before treatment (t =9.391,19.349,26.349,5.026,12.610,19.518,all P ＜ 0.05),the M ADRS scores were significantly lower than those before treatment (t =8.646,22.190,33.101,4.986,13.185,25.959,all P ＜ 0.05),and the CGI scores were significantly lower than those before treatment(t =17.471,29.482,42.256,13.136,28.358,35.661,all P ＜ 0.05).In the observation group,after treatment for 2,4,8 weeks,the HAMD scores were significantly lower than those in the control group(t =4.093,4.537,5.655,all P ＜ 0.05),and the MADRS scores were significantly lower than those in the control group (t =3.622,9.740,7.490,all P ＜ 0.05),while the CGI scores were significantly lower than those in the control group(t =8.608,11.024,12.598,all P ＜ 0.05).After treatment,the levels of 5-HT,NE and DA were (148.5 ± 4.9) ng/mL,(60.6 ± 4.2) ng/L and (78.0 ± 4.1) ng/L in the observation group,which were significantly higher than before treatment [(79.8 ± 4.3) ng/mL,(30.3 ± 4.0) ng/L and (43.5 ± 4.0) ng/L,t =82.977,41.134,46.837,all P ＜ 0.05].In the control group after treatment,the levels of 5-HT,NE and DA were (125.4 ± 4.1) ng/mL,(40.2 ± 4.0)ng/L and (50.3 ± 4.3)nig/L,which were significantly higher than those before treatment [(79.2 ± 3.9)ng/mL,(30.5 ±4.1)ng/L and (43.2 ±3.6)ng/L,t =64.287,13.334,9.969,all P ＜0.05],but which those in the observation group increased more significantly (t =28.469,27.695,36.286,all P ＜ 0.05).4 weeks and 8 weeks after treatment,the TESS scores in the observation group were (3.0 ± 1.0) points and (4.3 ± 1.2) points,which in the control group were (2.8 ± 1.2) points and (4.1 ± 1.3) points,there were no significant differences in terms of TESS scores (t =1.150,0.846,all P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion EEG biofeedback therapy combined with mirtazapine in the treatment of depression is better,the adverse reactions is not significantly increased,and it also has higher clinical safety compared with mirtazapine alone.

Objective: To analyze the clinical effect of fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with post-cerebral infarction depression (PSD) and its influence on neurological rehabilitation. Methods: From February 2017 to February 2018, 92 PSD patients received treatment in the department of neurology of the Third People's Hospital of Quzhou were included in the study.The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the digital table, with 46 cases in each group.The control group was treated with specialist symptomatic therapy, while the study group was treated with fluoxetine intervention for 4 weeks.The Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMD), neurological deficit scale (NIHSS) and daily living capacity scale (ADL) were used to evaluate the clinical effects of the two groups, and the adverse reactions of the two groups were observed. Results: One week before treatment, the HAMD, NIHSS and ADL scores of the study group were (28.37±2.18)points, (23.10±3.16)points and (40.61±3.52)points, respectively, which of the control group were (28.30±2.24)points, (22.91±3.20)points and (41.15±3.35)points, respectively, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (t=0.223, 1.522, 0.761, all P>0.05). After 2 weeks of treatment, the HAMD, NIHSS and ADL scores of the study group were (21.08±2.33)points, (19.27±2.89)points and (49.26±2.88)points, respectively, which were higher than those of the control group[(24.15±2.43)points, (21.16±2.18)points, (44.26±2.54)points](t=4.384, 10.216, 8.276, all P<0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, the HAMD, NIHSS and ADL scores of the study group were (12.61±1.87)points, (10.12±1.30)points, (70.13±2.16)points, respectively, which were higher than those of the control group[(15.20±2.06)points, (17.45±2.66)points, (51.19±2.46)points](t=7.273, 18.283, 5.371, all P<0.05). The total effective rate of neurological recovery in the study group was 91.30%(42/46), the total effective rate of depression treatment was 84.78%(39/46), which in the control group were 76.09%(35/46) and 65.22%(30/46), respectively, the differences were statistically significant (χ²=3.903, 4.696, all P<0.05). Conclusion The application of fluoxetine in the treatment of PSD can effectively improve the patients' depressive symptoms, promote the recovery of neurological function, improve self-care ability, and has high safety.It has important clinical value.