A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity

Background and study aims Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic procedure which requires prior cleansing of the bowel. Many different bowel cleansing preparations have been developed, all of which have specific advantages and disadvantages. This review compares two low-volume high-osmolarity bowel...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bruno Moulin, Thierry Ponchon
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018-10-01
Series:Endoscopy International Open
Online Access:http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-0581-8723
_version_ 1818497184273793024
author Bruno Moulin
Thierry Ponchon
author_facet Bruno Moulin
Thierry Ponchon
author_sort Bruno Moulin
collection DOAJ
description Background and study aims Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic procedure which requires prior cleansing of the bowel. Many different bowel cleansing preparations have been developed, all of which have specific advantages and disadvantages. This review compares two low-volume high-osmolarity bowel cleansing preparations, oral phosphate salts and oral sulphate salts, with a particular focus on risk of nephrotoxicity. Patients and methods An electronic search of the Medline database was performed using the search terms “(phosphates OR sulfates) AND cathartics [MeSH Term] AND kidney” restricted to humans with a cut-off date of December 31, 2016. Results Introduction of oral phosphate salts offered the advantage of low intake volume and low risk of bowel irritation compared to previous options. However, phosphate salts have been associated with renal toxicity (acute phosphate nephropathy [APN]), thought to arise due to perturbations of calcium and phosphate homeostasis as a consequence of increases in serum phosphate. This results in high concentrations of calcium phosphate in the distal tubule and collecting ducts of the kidney, where it may precipitate. Although APN is rare, it may lead to permanent kidney damage. For this reason, phosphate salts are contraindicated in vulnerable patient groups. As an alternative to phosphate salts, oral sulphate salts have recently been introduced. Because sulphate absorption from the intestinal tract is saturable, serum sulphate concentrations increase only minimally after ingestion. Furthermore, excretion of sulphate in the kidney is not accompanied by calcium excretion and urine calcium levels are unchanged. For these theoretical reasons, use of sulphate salts as bowel cleansing solutions is not expected to lead to calcium precipitation in the nephron. Conclusions Oral phosphate salts are no longer recommended for routine use as bowel cleansing preparations as they carry significant risk of kidney damage and a safer alternative is available in the form of oral sulphate solutions. To date, use of sulphate salts has not been associated with elevations in serum creatinine or other markers of renal impairment, nor with clinical manifestations of kidney injury. Nonetheless, experience with sulphate salts in everyday practice is limited and physicians should be vigilant in detecting potential safety issues.
first_indexed 2024-12-10T18:42:34Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ec8ab558bbd042d39905cfc08d9f1da9
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2364-3722
2196-9736
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T18:42:34Z
publishDate 2018-10-01
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format Article
series Endoscopy International Open
spelling doaj.art-ec8ab558bbd042d39905cfc08d9f1da92022-12-22T01:37:38ZengGeorg Thieme Verlag KGEndoscopy International Open2364-37222196-97362018-10-010610E1206E121310.1055/a-0581-8723A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicityBruno Moulin0Thierry Ponchon1Nephrology Department, Strasbourg University Hospital, 67091 Strasbourg, FranceHepatogastroenterology Department, Edouard Herriot Hospital, 69000 Lyon, FranceBackground and study aims Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic procedure which requires prior cleansing of the bowel. Many different bowel cleansing preparations have been developed, all of which have specific advantages and disadvantages. This review compares two low-volume high-osmolarity bowel cleansing preparations, oral phosphate salts and oral sulphate salts, with a particular focus on risk of nephrotoxicity. Patients and methods An electronic search of the Medline database was performed using the search terms “(phosphates OR sulfates) AND cathartics [MeSH Term] AND kidney” restricted to humans with a cut-off date of December 31, 2016. Results Introduction of oral phosphate salts offered the advantage of low intake volume and low risk of bowel irritation compared to previous options. However, phosphate salts have been associated with renal toxicity (acute phosphate nephropathy [APN]), thought to arise due to perturbations of calcium and phosphate homeostasis as a consequence of increases in serum phosphate. This results in high concentrations of calcium phosphate in the distal tubule and collecting ducts of the kidney, where it may precipitate. Although APN is rare, it may lead to permanent kidney damage. For this reason, phosphate salts are contraindicated in vulnerable patient groups. As an alternative to phosphate salts, oral sulphate salts have recently been introduced. Because sulphate absorption from the intestinal tract is saturable, serum sulphate concentrations increase only minimally after ingestion. Furthermore, excretion of sulphate in the kidney is not accompanied by calcium excretion and urine calcium levels are unchanged. For these theoretical reasons, use of sulphate salts as bowel cleansing solutions is not expected to lead to calcium precipitation in the nephron. Conclusions Oral phosphate salts are no longer recommended for routine use as bowel cleansing preparations as they carry significant risk of kidney damage and a safer alternative is available in the form of oral sulphate solutions. To date, use of sulphate salts has not been associated with elevations in serum creatinine or other markers of renal impairment, nor with clinical manifestations of kidney injury. Nonetheless, experience with sulphate salts in everyday practice is limited and physicians should be vigilant in detecting potential safety issues.http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-0581-8723
spellingShingle Bruno Moulin
Thierry Ponchon
A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
Endoscopy International Open
title A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
title_full A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
title_fullStr A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
title_full_unstemmed A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
title_short A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
title_sort comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity
url http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-0581-8723
work_keys_str_mv AT brunomoulin acomparativereviewofuseofsulphateandphosphatesaltsforcolonoscopypreparationsandtheirpotentialfornephrotoxicity
AT thierryponchon acomparativereviewofuseofsulphateandphosphatesaltsforcolonoscopypreparationsandtheirpotentialfornephrotoxicity
AT brunomoulin comparativereviewofuseofsulphateandphosphatesaltsforcolonoscopypreparationsandtheirpotentialfornephrotoxicity
AT thierryponchon comparativereviewofuseofsulphateandphosphatesaltsforcolonoscopypreparationsandtheirpotentialfornephrotoxicity