Message Board

Respected readers, authors and reviewers, you can add comments to this page on any questions about the contribution, review,        editing and publication of this journal. We will give you an answer as soon as possible. Thank you for your support!

Name
E-mail
Phone
Title
Content
Verification Code
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

HUANG Xin, YANG Rujie, QIN Feng, ZHANG Shilian, WU Xin, YIN Xiaoyan. The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service. doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049
Citation: HUANG Xin, YANG Rujie, QIN Feng, ZHANG Shilian, WU Xin, YIN Xiaoyan. The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service. doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049

The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy

doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049
  • Received Date: 2023-11-26
  • Accepted Date: 2025-11-26
  • Rev Recd Date: 2025-06-22
  • Available Online: 2026-01-27
  •   Objective   To explore the efficacy and safety of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy.   Methods  Patients who planned to undergo colonoscopy at the Digestive Department of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from January 2023 to August 2023 were selected and eligible subjects were divided into two groups: Group A took polyethylene glycol (PEG) and Group B took oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate (OSS). The quality, drug tolerance, and safety of intestinal preparation were evaluated. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated by the boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS).   Results  The right colon BBPS score of Group B was (2.39±0.82) points, which was significantly higher than of Group A (2.11±0.43) points (P<0.05). The overall score of Group B was higher than that of Group A (P<0.05). OSS was easier to take than PEG, with a good taste and overall sensation. Patients were willing to use OSS to clean their bowels even when they were willing to undergo another examination (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in nausea and vomiting symptoms between the two groups (P<0.05), and there were no significant changes in renal function and electrolytes before and after medication in the two groups of patients.   Conclusions  OSS had a higher quality of bowel cleaning and was easier for patients to accept.
  • [1] REX D K, ANDERSON J C, BUTTERLY L F, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2024, 100(3): 352-381. doi:  10.1016/j.gie.2024.04.2905
    [2] DOLOVICH C, UNRUH C, MOFFATT D C, et al. Mandatory vs. optional split-dose bowel preparation for morning colonoscopies: a pragmatic noninferiority randomized controlled trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2023, 55(9): 822-835. doi:  10.1055/a-2070-5561
    [3] WU J D, LIU S, LI S Y, et al. Bowel preparation efficacy and discomfort of 2 L polyethylene glycol combined with linaclotide versus 3 L polyethylene glycol: a noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial[J]. Therap Adv Gastroenterol, 2024, 17: 17562848241299739.
    [4] KIM H M, KIM H S, AN Y E, et al. Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy[J]. Dig Endosc, 2024, 36(12): 1347-1354. doi:  10.1111/den.14830
    [5] HSU W F, CHIU H M. Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives[J]. Dig Endosc, 2023, 35(7): 822-834. doi:  10.1111/den.14627
    [6] 中华医学会消化内镜学分会结直肠学组. 结肠镜检查肠道准备专家共识意见(2023, 广州)[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2023, 40(6): 421-30. doi:  10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20230607-00230
    [7] PAN P, ZHAO S B, WANG S L, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase Ⅲ multicenter randomized controlled trial[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2023, 98(6): 977-986. e14.
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Tables(5)

Article Metrics

Article views(1200) PDF downloads(3) Cited by()

Related
Proportional views

The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy

doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049

Abstract:   Objective   To explore the efficacy and safety of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy.   Methods  Patients who planned to undergo colonoscopy at the Digestive Department of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from January 2023 to August 2023 were selected and eligible subjects were divided into two groups: Group A took polyethylene glycol (PEG) and Group B took oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate (OSS). The quality, drug tolerance, and safety of intestinal preparation were evaluated. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated by the boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS).   Results  The right colon BBPS score of Group B was (2.39±0.82) points, which was significantly higher than of Group A (2.11±0.43) points (P<0.05). The overall score of Group B was higher than that of Group A (P<0.05). OSS was easier to take than PEG, with a good taste and overall sensation. Patients were willing to use OSS to clean their bowels even when they were willing to undergo another examination (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in nausea and vomiting symptoms between the two groups (P<0.05), and there were no significant changes in renal function and electrolytes before and after medication in the two groups of patients.   Conclusions  OSS had a higher quality of bowel cleaning and was easier for patients to accept.

HUANG Xin, YANG Rujie, QIN Feng, ZHANG Shilian, WU Xin, YIN Xiaoyan. The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service. doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049
Citation: HUANG Xin, YANG Rujie, QIN Feng, ZHANG Shilian, WU Xin, YIN Xiaoyan. The efficacy of oral solution of magnesium sodium potassium sulfate in bowel preparation before colonoscopy[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service. doi: 10.12206/j.issn.2097-2024.202311049
  • 结肠镜检查被认为是筛查、诊断和监测结直肠疾病的必要辅助检查,可早期发现病变,降低结直肠癌(CRC)的发病率和死亡率[1]。充分的肠道准备是结肠镜检查成功的基石。然而,据报道,约有20%~40%的病例,其肠道清洁效果不佳,由此可能导致短期内重复结肠镜检查、医疗保健系统成本增加、并发症风险增加、操作时间延长以及漏诊率增加等不良后果发生[2]。而肠道准备的质量受到多种因素的影响,除了需要指导患者正确进行肠道准备,很大程度上还取决于患者对泻药和饮食说明的依从性,因此泻药的选择具有重要意义。

    复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)的肠道清洁功效已得到充分证实[3],作为一种容积性泻剂,它通过口服大量液体清洗肠道,对肠道的吸收和分泌无明显影响,同时又不引起水和电解质紊乱。然而,PEG溶液的口感和患者耐受性普遍较差,导致患者的依从性降低。因此,亟需一种更好的替代品来提高肠道准备的质量。

    本研究选取上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院(我院)消化科拟行结肠镜检查的患者作为研究对象,给予不同的肠道准备方案,并记录波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分和不良反应,旨在探讨硫酸镁钠钾口服液(OSS)在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果和安全性。

    • 本研究为一项随机、双盲、对照临床试验。选取了2023年1月至8月期间在我院消化科拟行结肠镜检查的患者294例。

    • 纳入标准:①年龄20~70岁;②原因不明的下消化道出血;③腹痛及慢性腹泻;④排便习惯改变。排除标准:①合并严重脏器功能不全;②合并肠梗阻、肠穿孔、电解质紊乱以及活动性消化道出血;③活动性炎症性肠病;④妊娠或哺乳期妇女;⑤严重精神类疾病无法配合者。研究方案经我院伦理委员会批准,所有患者均签署了知情同意书。

    • 320例患者中符合纳入标准的294例随机分为A组[服PEG(商品名:和爽,深圳万和制药有限公司]及B组[服OSS(177 ml,商品名:川倍清,济川药业集团有限公司)]。所有受试者在检查前一天清淡早餐,午餐及晚餐只能进食澄清流质,避免进食红色或紫色液体、牛奶和含酒精饮料。检查前一天傍晚:A组将PEG配制成1 L的溶液,搅拌使其完全溶解后服用,然后至少饮水1.5 L;B组将一瓶OSS用水稀释至0.5 L服用,然后2 h内饮水1 L。检查当天早晨,重复前一天服药方法。摄入全部泻药后,所有受试者均摄入30 ml西甲硅油乳剂(商品名:柏西,德国柏林化学股份公司)。

    • BBPS评分:比较两组患者左半结肠、横结肠、右半结肠肠道清洁程度评分之和。0分:肠腔内有大量固体粪便,无法看清肠黏膜;1分:肠腔内残留粪便或不透明液体,部分肠黏膜能看清;2分:肠腔内残留少量粪便或不透明液体,能看清肠黏膜;3分:肠腔内无粪便或不透明液体,肠黏膜可全部看清[4]

    • 在肠镜检查前,患者填写一份药物耐受性调查问卷,以“服药的难易程度”、“服药整体感受”和“药物的口感”进行药物耐受性评估。共分5级,分别为1级:非常容易,2级:容易,3级:可以忍受,4级:困难,5级:非常困难,并对“服完全部药物”、“再次结肠镜检查时使用相同药物”进行“是”或“否”的回答。

      安全性评估包括:①对恶心、呕吐、腹痛、口渴、脱水、头痛、头晕、嗜睡和死亡等不良事件报告(AE)进行评分,共分5分,分别为1分:无,2分:轻度,3分:令人烦恼,4分:令人痛苦,5分:严重令人痛苦。②观察纳入患者服药前后血液尿素氮、肌酐和血清电解质(钠、钾、氯、钙、磷酸盐和镁)的水平变化。

    • 统计分析采用Graphpad Prism 9软件进行数据分析,计量资料用($\bar x $±s)表示,组间比较采用双尾Student t检验;计数资料以率或百分比表示,采用χ2检验。P<0.05被认为有差异学意义。

    • A组男79例,女68例;年龄(47.75±15.47)岁。B组男71例,女76例;年龄(45.43±11.27)岁。两组受试者的性别、年龄、民族、身体质量指数(BMI)、结肠镜完成率及临床特征相似,两组结肠镜检查完成率无统计学差异(P>0.05),具有可比性,见表1

      组别例数(n)性别(例)年龄(岁)民族[n(%)]身体质量指数BMI(kg/m2结肠镜检查
      完成例数(n
      合并其他疾病
      例数[n(%)]
      汉族其他民族
      A组147796847.75±15.47144(97.96)3(2.04)23.62±2.9823.56±1.7314570(47.61)
      B组147717645.43±11.27146(99.32)1(0.68)24.34±2.6323.11±2.4514674(50.34)
      P 0.170.374 20.243 3 0.301 40.736 10.476 50.508 9
    • 两组左半结肠及横结肠BBPS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。但是,B组右半结肠BBPS评分明显高于A组(P<0.05),总体评分B组高于A组(P<0.05),见表2。说明OSS具有较好的肠道清洁作用。

      组别 左半结肠 横结肠 右半结肠 总分
      A组 2.80±0.67 2.39±0.49 2.11±0.43 7.60±0.26
      B组 2.91±0.33 2.43±0.87 2.39±0.82 7.72±0.56
      P 0.765 8 0.316 4 0.011 5 0.032 3
    • OSS较PEG易于服用,口感、整体感受均较好,患者愿意再次检查时仍使用该药物清洁肠道(P<0.05);两组患者全部服用完肠道清洁剂,见表3

      组别 耐受程度(分) 服完全部
      药物(例)
      愿意再次结肠镜
      检查时使用相同
      药物(例)
      服药的
      难易程度
      服药整
      体感受
      药物的
      口感
      A组 4.43±0.27 4.18±0.37 4.51±0.44 147 130
      B组 3.29±0.14 3.08±0.47 3.56±0.13 147 144
      P 0.046 3 0.034 7 0.041 5 NA 0.007
    • 两组恶心、呕吐症状有明显差异(P<0.05),腹痛、口渴等不适症状均没有显著差异(P>0.05),两组均未出现死亡,也没有入组患者因不良事件退出检查,见表4。两组患者服药前及服药后肾功能及电解质无明显改变,见表5

      组别 不良事件情况例数 因不良事件而
      退出检查例数
      死亡例数
      恶心 呕吐 腹痛 口渴 脱水 头晕 头痛 嗜睡
      A组 64 47 14 10 4 3 4 2 0 0
      B组 50 35 8 5 2 2 1 1 0 0
      P 0.019 9 0.033 8 0.092 0.101 5 0.310 6 0.559 7 0.128 3 0.476 5 NA NA
      组别  尿素氮(mmol/L) 肌酐(μmol/L) 钠(mmol/L) 钾(mmol/L) 氯(mmol/L) 钙(mmol/L) 磷(mmol/L) 镁(mmol/L)
      A组                
      服药前 3.9±2.8 74.27±11.36 141.9±3.45 3.54±1.35 103.9±1.02 2.46±0.07 1.27±0.18 0.86±0.03
      服药后 4.4±3.0 68.43±8.45 142.4±2.13 3.31±1.63 101.7±1.21 2.51±0.04 1.35±0.20 0.83±0.04
      P 0.081 6 0.083 4 0.064 3 0.070 3 0.059 7 0.063 3 0.088 6 0.070 8
      B组                
      服药前 4.5±2.1 63.67±6.63 140.3±2.56 3.31±1.02 100.4±2.23 2.34±0.05 1.35±0.11 0.84±0.05
      服药后 5.2±1.3 68.36±10.13 138.3±1.13 3.35±1.47 102.6±2.17 2.35±0.06 1.31±0.26 0.93±0.02
      P 0.084 3 0.079 5 0.077 3 0.093 2 0.087 1 0.073 4 0.081 8 0.056 3
    • 通过对整个结肠粘膜成像,结肠镜检查是预防CRC的有效手段之一,可将其死亡率降低约50%;肠道清洁度是影响检查质量的关键因素,近期研究显示,若肠道准备不理想,腺瘤漏检率可达40%~48%[5]。因此,高质量的肠道准备对于结肠镜诊断的准确性和治疗的安全性具有至关重要的作用。

      肠道准备质量的好坏与多种因素有关,包括年龄、性别、住院状况、体重指数、合并症、麻醉剂的使用、便秘、患者依从性、教育水平以及肠道准备剂的类型等有关。理想的肠道准备应在短时间内清除肠腔内的固体和液体物质,不会引起肠道黏膜的改变,不会造成患者的不适,不引起水电解质紊乱及价格适中[6]。目前,肠道清洁制剂有高渗性泻药(磷酸钠盐)、等渗性泻药(复方聚乙二醇)和刺激性泻药(匹可硫酸钠)。磷酸钠盐制剂可能会导致严重电解质紊乱、诱发癫痫或引起肾功能损害,匹可硫酸钠制剂可导致腹部绞痛等不良反应。2023版结肠镜检查肠道准备专家共识意见推荐高容量复方聚乙二醇分次方案用于常规肠道准备。

        OSS是新型的高渗透性肠道清洁剂,可使肠内渗透压升高,体液的水分向肠腔移动,加速清肠作用,并可防止腹泻造成的体内电解质紊乱[7]。本研究比较了PEG和OSS两种不同的给药方案对肠道清洁程度的影响,结果显示,对于较难清洁的右半结肠,OSS组BBPS明显高于PEG组,总体肠道清洁度优于PEG组。由于肠道准备过程的舒适度是否能被接受也是临床上需要考虑的重要因素,因此,我们对两种泻药的耐受性及安全性进行了评估。结果发现,OSS在口味、接受度上具有明显优势,PEG组总体容量较大,患者出现不同程度恶心,呕吐不适。两组患者服用泻药后均未出现明显的电解质紊乱及肾功能损害。

      综上所述,本研究表明OSS作为肠道准备的辅助药物是安全有效的,也更易于被患者所接受,从而提高肠道准备的依从性。

Reference (7)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return