Evaluation of Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Dosing Strategies in the Inpatient Management of Hyperkalemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia occurs frequently in an inpatient setting, for which sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS) is a common treatment modality. Few studies have investigated the dose-response of SPS. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in serum potassium after 15-, 30-, and 60-g oral and 30-g rectal doses of SPS. Secondary objectives were to compare the proportion of patients attaining post-SPS dose normokalemia between dosing groups and to investigate the effect of certain characteristics on SPS dose-response. METHODS: The reduction in serum potassium after 15-, 30-, and 60-g oral and 30-g rectal doses of SPS administered to adult inpatients was evaluated through a retrospective chart review. Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board approval was obtained prior to data collection. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included in the analysis. Serum potassium levels were reduced by 0.39, 0.69, 0.91, and 0.22 mEq/L following 15-, 30-, and 60-g oral doses and a 30-g rectal dose of SPS, respectively. A greater proportion of patients (50% vs 23%) remained hyperkalemic in the 15-g versus the 60-g group (P = 0.018), and all patients in the rectal group remained hyperkalemic. No patient in any group experienced postdose hypokalemia. The influence of all studied interindividual characteristics on SPS dose-response was clinically nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Mild hyperkalemia can be effectively treated with a single 60-g oral dose of SPS as monotherapy, with minimal risk of hypokalemia. Moderate to severe hyperkalemic episodes warrant alternative therapy. The potassium-lowering effect is correlated to SPS dose and is independent of interindividual characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".