切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胃肠内镜电子杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01) : 41 -45. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-7157.2025.01.009

论著

硫酸镁及磷酸钠盐在老年人肠道准备中的应用比较
李若潮1, 李雪1, 聂丹1, 刘文徽1, 葛伏林1,()   
  1. 1. 100853 北京,解放军总医院第二医学中心消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2024-11-20 出版日期:2025-02-15
  • 通信作者: 葛伏林

Comparison of the application of magnesium sulfate and sodium phosphate in bowel preparation for elderly patients

Ruochao Li1, Xue Li1, Dan Nie1, Wenhui Liu1, Fulin Ge1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology,The Second Medical Centre,Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing 100853,China
  • Received:2024-11-20 Published:2025-02-15
  • Corresponding author: Fulin Ge
引用本文:

李若潮, 李雪, 聂丹, 刘文徽, 葛伏林. 硫酸镁及磷酸钠盐在老年人肠道准备中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2025, 12(01): 41-45.

Ruochao Li, Xue Li, Dan Nie, Wenhui Liu, Fulin Ge. Comparison of the application of magnesium sulfate and sodium phosphate in bowel preparation for elderly patients[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(Electronic Edition), 2025, 12(01): 41-45.

目的

观察硫酸镁及磷酸钠盐应用于老年人结肠镜检查前肠道准备的安全性及有效性。

方法

选择解放军总医院第二医学中心254 例拟行结肠镜检查老年患者,随机分为硫酸镁组及磷酸钠盐组,比较两组患者一般信息、肠道准备完成情况、不良反应、病变检出率、患者满意度及检查后血电解质异常情况等。

结果

两组病例在年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)等无明显差别;硫酸镁组平均排便次数为(7.9±1.3)次,少于磷酸钠盐组(9.5±1.9)次,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 硫酸镁组完成肠道准备时长为(123.6±23.7)min,磷酸钠盐组(138.2±25.5)min,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.016)。 硫酸镁组全结肠波士顿评分(BBPS)为(8.11±0.71),略高于磷酸钠盐组(7.98±0.69),差异无统计学意义(P=0.089)。 硫酸镁组肠道息肉及微息肉(直径<5 mm)检出率分别为46/128(35.9%)及40/128(31.2%),分别较磷酸钠盐组38/126(30.1%)及31/126(24.6%)增高,差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05);硫酸镁组出现恶心、腹胀、腹痛等不适症状的发生率与磷酸钠盐无明显差别,但呕吐的发生率则较磷酸钠盐组降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 硫酸镁组患者对肠道准备的满意率达95.3%,较磷酸钠盐组(96.8%)无明显差异。 磷酸钠盐组血钾及血磷异常发生率较硫酸镁组增高,而血镁异常发生率则在硫酸镁组更高,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

老年患者采用硫酸镁或磷酸钠盐分次口服方案实施肠道准备,服药依从性及耐受性好,清洁质量高,不良反应少,相对安全,适合在临床应用。

Objective

To observe the effectiveness and safety of Magnesium sulfate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in elderly patients.

Method

A total of 254 elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy in the second medical center of PLA General Hospital were randomly divided into Magnesium sulfate group and sodium phosphate groups.The general information,completion of bowel preparation,adverse reactions,lesion detection rate,incidence of adverse reactions,patient satisfaction and abnormal changes of blood electrolyte after colonoscopy were compared between the two groups.

Result

There was no significant difference in age,gender,body mass index (BMI) between the two groups; After bowel preparation,the average number of bowel movements in the Magnesium sulfate group was (7.9±1.3) times,which was less than that in the sodium phosphate group (9.5±1.9) times,and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05).The average time required for the magnesium sulfate group to complete bowel preparation was (123.6±23.7) minutes,which was shorter than that of the sodium phosphate group (138.2 ± 25.5) minutes,and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.016).The total score for Boston bowel preparation of Magnesium sulfate group was (8.11 ± 0.71),slightly higher than that of the sodium phosphate group (7.98 ± 0.69),and the difference was not statistically significant(P< 0.05); The detection rates of bowel polyps and micro polyps (diameter<5 mm) in the Magnesium sulfate group were 46/128 (35.9%) and 40/128 (31.2%),respectively,which were higher than those in the sodium phosphate group (38/126 (30.1%) and 31/126 (24.6%),and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05); The incidence of discomfort symptoms such as nausea,abdominal distension,and abdominal pain in the magnesium sulfate group was not significantly different from that in the sodium phosphate group,but the incidence of vomiting was lower than that in the sodium phosphate group,and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).The satisfaction rate of patients in the Magnesium sulfate group with intestinal preparation reached 95.3%,with no significant difference compared to the sodium phosphate group (96.8%).The incidence of abnormal blood potassium and phosphorus in the sodium phosphate group was higher than that in the Magnesium sulfate group,while the incidence of abnormal blood Magnesium was higher in the Magnesium sulfate group,and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of magnesium sulfate or sodium phosphate in divided oral doses for bowel preparation in elderly patients has good medication compliance and tolerance,high hygiene quality,fewer adverse reactions,and is relatively safe,making it suitable for clinical application.

表1 波士顿肠道准备评分标准(BBPS)
表2 两组患者一般资料的比较(例)
表3 两组的肠道准备后排便情况比较(±s
表4 两组患者肠腔各段BBPS 评分比较(±s
表5 两组患者部分病变检出情况对比(例)
表6 两组间不良反应及满意度的比较(例)
表7 两组检查后血电解质异常发生比较(例)
[1]
Calderwood AH,Jacobson BC.Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale[J].Gastrointest Endosc,2010,72(4):686-692.
[2]
谢金花,顾幼敏,孙涛.老年人肠道准备的研究进展[J].老年医学与保健,2024,30(6):1833-1836.
[3]
罗利绵,刘义豪,潘晟,等.老年人结肠镜检查前的肠道准备[J].中国现代普通外科进展,2024,27(8):78-81.
[4]
葛伏林,吴文娟,王鸣,等.硫酸镁溶液不同口服方法在老年人肠道准备中的应用效果及安全性分析[J/OL].中华胃肠内镜电子杂志,2021,8(2):68-71.
[5]
中国医师协会内镜医师分会消化内镜专业委员会.中国消化内镜诊疗相关肠道准备指南(2019,上海)[J].中华消化内镜杂志,2019,36(7):457-469.
[6]
吴东,韩伟,冯云路,等.复方聚乙二醇分次与单次给药用于早晨结肠镜肠道准备效果的荟萃分析[J].中华消化内镜杂志,2016,33(12):842-846.
[7]
Martel M,Barkun AN,Menard C,et al.Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens:A metaanalysis[J].Gastroenterology,2015,149(1):79-88.
[8]
杨贞,蒙有轩,李金蓉.磷酸钠盐和聚乙二醇用于老年患者术前肠道准备的耐受性与依从性比较[J].国际老年医学杂志,2020,41(3):181-184.
[9]
Ge F,Kang X,Wang Z,et al.Low-dose of magnesium sulfate solution was not inferior to standard regime of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized,controlled study[J].Scand J Gastroenterol,2023,58(1):94-100.
[10]
于美花,田月强.磷酸钠盐口服溶液用于结肠镜肠道准备时饮水量的研究[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2017,28(S4):24-25.
[11]
Hoffmanova I,Kraml P,Andel M.Renal risk associated with sodium phosphate medication: safe in healthy individuals,potentially dangerous in others[J].Expert Opin Drug Saf,2015,14(7): 1097-1110.
[1] 王文华, 吴周全, 恽惠方, 王志萍. 经鼻右美托咪定在老年患者无痛肠镜检查中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 344-348.
[2] 李世红, 牛钦王, 刘雁军, 张元川, 刘展. 术前未行肠道准备对择期结直肠手术影响的探讨[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2021, 15(04): 278-281.
[3] 方红燕, 刘晓昌, 方家旭. 腹部按压联合综合护理在腹壁造口旁疝患者肠镜检查中的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 625-629.
[4] 陈佳楠, 陈海鹏, 王玲玲, 刘正, 刘骞. 首荟通便胶囊在右半结肠切除手术肠道准备中的作用研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 476-481.
[5] 杨龙宝, 赵刚, 安苗, 秦赟, 薛琼, 王进海, 董蕾. 联合无痛胃肠镜检查患者的肠道准备策略[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(03): 278-283.
[6] 孔绘敏, 王秀勤, 梁海. 硫酸镁钠钾口服液与复方聚乙二醇电解质散对患者肠道清洁的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 259-261.
[7] 杨晓金, 李婷, 蔡波尔, 吴云林, 陈平, 杨翠萍. 五个家族性腺瘤性息肉病家系分析[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(04): 220-223.
[8] 董欣, 李雪兰. 硫酸镁治疗子痫前期过程中存在的问题与困惑[J/OL]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2021, 10(04): 206-210.
[9] 朱亚男, 曹哲丽, 韩静, 侯丛然, 路璐, 刘叶婷, 熊英. 聚乙二醇电解质散联合利那洛肽在肠道准备中的应用探讨[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 207-210.
[10] 宋振河, 张沛康, 高孝忠. 肠道准备不充分风险列线图的开发与验证[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2024, 11(02): 100-104.
[11] 于晓欢, 路璐, 赵振峰, 谢长访, 熊英. 利那洛肽胶囊联合低剂量聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜肠道准备的可行性与安全性[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(03): 121-125.
[12] 叶淑君, 刘阳, 马连君. 肠道准备与结肠息肉检出率的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(02): 104-107.
[13] 张静洁, 江振宇, 汤泊夫, 武勇, 孟宪梅. 乙状结肠二次进镜对于腺瘤性息肉检出率影响的研究[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(02): 82-85.
[14] 邵佩, 皮壮, 钟媛, 王楠, 王丽波. 注水法在婴幼儿结肠镜检查中的应用[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(01): 25-29.
[15] 曾庆连, 马建霞, 张晓莉, 陈源文, 刘康蔚, 姚健凤. 聚乙二醇与磷酸钠盐在中老年人结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 16-20.
阅读次数
全文


摘要