Electrolyte disturbances after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ankie Reumkens, Quirine van der Zander, Bjorn Winkens, Roel Bogie, Christine Minke Bakker, Silvia Sanduleanu, Ad A M Masclee, Ankie Reumkens, Quirine van der Zander, Bjorn Winkens, Roel Bogie, Christine Minke Bakker, Silvia Sanduleanu, Ad A M Masclee

Abstract

Background and study aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to explore pooled prevalence and magnitude of electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy based on the most recent guidelines.

Patients and methods: PubMed and Cochrane were queried for population-based studies examining changes in electrolyte values after bowel preparation, published by July 1, 2021. We report prevalences of serum hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia after bowel preparation and changes in mean electrolyte values after vs. before bowel preparation using sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 2386 unique patients were included. Overall, hypokalemia was found in 17.2% (95% CI 6.7, 30.9) in the NaP group vs. 4.8% (95% CI 0.27, 13.02) in the PEG group. The magnitude of potassium decrease after NaP bowel preparation was significantly increased compared to PEG (mean difference -0.38; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27, P < 0.001). No study reported on major complications.

Conclusions: Hypokalemia was found in 17.2% of patients after bowel preparation with NaP and in 4.8% of patients with PEG, a finding that is clinically relevant with respect to choosing the type of bowel preparation. The magnitude of the potassium decrease after NaP was significantly higher compared to PEG. These data provide the evidence that supports the recommendation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy against routine use of NaP for bowel preparation.

Keywords: bowel preparation; colonoscopy; electrolyte disorder; hypokalemia; low potassium.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.

© 2022 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection flowchart of studies who examined pooled prevalence and magnitude of electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pooled prevalences (%) of hypokalemia after bowel preparation with (A) sodium phosphate (NaP), (B) polyethylene glycol (PEG), and (C) odds ratio (OR) for NaP vs. PEG.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pooled changes in mean potassium values (in mmol/L) after vs. before bowel preparation for (A) sodium phosphate (NaP), (B) polyethylene glycol (PEG), and (C) difference in mean change for NaP vs. PEG.

References

    1. Aoun E, Abdul‐Baki H, Azar C et al. A randomized single‐blind trial of split‐dose PEG‐electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG‐electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 213–8.
    1. Jansen SV, Goedhard JG, Winkens B, van Deursen CT. Preparation before colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial comparing different regimes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 23: 897–902.
    1. Reumkens A, Masclee AAM, Bakker CM. Postcolonoscopy mortality: Bowel preparation to blame? Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 744–5.
    1. Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy ‐ A meta‐analysis. Colorectal Dis 2006; 8: 247–58.
    1. Di Nardo G, Aloi M, Cucchiara S et al. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: An RCT. Pediatrics 2014; 134: 249–56.
    1. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline ‐ Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775–94.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336–41.
    1. Voorham QJ, Rondagh EJ, Knol DL et al. Tracking the molecular features of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1042–56.
    1. Reumkens A, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM, Winkens B, Masclee AA, Sanduleanu S. Post‐colonoscopy complications: A systematic review, time trends, and meta‐analysis of population‐based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1092–101.
    1. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW. Critical appraisal of the health research literature: Prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Dis Can 1998; 19: 170–6.
    1. Lovell RM, Ford AC. Prevalence of gastro‐esophageal reflux‐type symptoms in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome in the community: A meta‐analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1793–801.
    1. Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1375–89.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. QUADAS‐2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–36.
    1. Miller JJ. The inverse of the Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation. Am Stat 1978; 32: 138.
    1. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta‐analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67: 974‐8.
    1. Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB. Meta‐analyses and forest plots using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: Step‐by‐step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5: 52.
    1. Higgins JPTTJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
    1. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta‐analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Soft 2010; 36: 1–48.
    1. R Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    1. Kastenberg D, Chasen R, Choudhary C et al. Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets compared with PEG solution in colon cleansing: Two identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase III trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 705–13.
    1. Holte K, Nielsen KG, Madsen JL, Kehlet H. Physiologic effects of bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 1397–402.
    1. Ainley EJ, Winwood PJ, Begley JP. Measurement of serum electrolytes and phosphate after sodium phosphate colonoscopy bowel preparation: An evaluation. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 1319–23.
    1. Bae SE, Kim KJ, Eum JB et al. A comparison of 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 45 mL of sodium phosphate versus 4 L of polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing: A prospective randomized trial. Gut Liver 2013; 7: 423–9.
    1. Beloosesky Y, Grinblat J, Weiss A, Grosman B, Gafter U, Chagnac A. Electrolyte disorders following oral sodium phosphate administration for bowel cleansing in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 803–8.
    1. Clarkston WK, Tsen TN, Dies DF, Schratz CL, Vaswani SK, Bjerregaard P. Oral sodium phosphate versus sulfate‐free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in outpatient preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 42–8.
    1. Huppertz‐Hauss G, Bretthauer M, Sauar J et al. Polyethylene glycol versus sodium phosphate in bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 537–41.
    1. Klare P, Poloschek A, Walter B et al. Single‐day sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate versus split‐dose polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: A prospective randomized endoscopist‐blinded trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 1627–34.
    1. Lieberman DA, Ghormley J, Flora K. Effect of oral sodium phosphate colon preparation on serum electrolytes in patients with normal serum creatinine. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 467–9.
    1. Marín Gabriel JC, Rodríguez Muñoz S, de la Cruz Bértolo J et al. Electrolytic disturbances and colonoscopy: Bowel lavage solutions, age and procedure. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2003; 95: 863–75.
    1. Mathus‐Vliegen EM, Kemble UM. A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol‐electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 543–52.
    1. Rex DK, DiPalma JA, McGowan J, Cleveland M. A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: Magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1113–23.
    1. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E, Dubé C et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing different regimens of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol‐based lavage solution in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 544–52.
    1. Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M, Coffin B, Dugue C, Halphen M. Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2‐L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol and electrolyte solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 1631–42.
    1. Johanson JF, Popp JW Jr, Cohen LB et al. A randomized, multicenter study comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets with 2L polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2238–46.
    1. Kan WC, Wang HY, Chien CC, Tan CK, Lin CY, Su SB. Intermediate bioelectrolyte changes after phospho‐soda or polyethylene glycol precolonoscopic laxatives in a population undergoing health examinations. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27: 752–7.
    1. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142–50.
    1. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 894–909.
    1. Lim YJ, Hong SJ. What is the best strategy for successful bowel preparation under special conditions? World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2741–5.
    1. Jung YS, Lee CK, Kim HJ, Eun CS, Han DS, Park DI. Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 15845–51.
    1. Seo EH, Kim TO, Kim TG et al. Efficacy and tolerability of split‐dose PEG compared with split‐dose aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatient colonoscopy: A randomized, controlled trial. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2963–71.
    1. Hsu CW, Imperiale TF. Meta‐analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 276–82.
    1. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic‐blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 689–96.
    1. Tjandra JJ, Chan M, Tagkalidis PP. Oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Picopre (sodium picosulfate‐based preparation). Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 616–20.
    1. Ell C, Fischbach W, Keller R et al. A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel‐cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG‐01*). Endoscopy 2003; 35: 300–4.
    1. Lee SP, Park E, Kim HV et al. Does 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid increase the risk of renal impairment compared to 4 L polyethylene glycol? Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 3207–14.
    1. Reumkens A, Masclee AA, Winkens B, van Deursen CT, Sanduleanu S, Bakker CM. Prevalence of hypokalemia before and after bowel preparation for colonoscopy in high‐risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 673–9.
    1. Yoshida N, Naito Y, Murakami T et al. Safety and efficacy of a same‐day low‐volume 1 L PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy for the elderly people and people with renal dysfunction. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 3229–35.
    1. Zorginstituut Nederland . Pharmacotherapeutic Compass. Diemen: Care Institute of the Netherlands; 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren