Academic Editors: Sorin Tiberiu Alexandrescu and Shinobu Ohnuma Received: 27 November 2024 Revised: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 24 December 2024 Published: 26 December 2024 Citation: Polatkan, S.A.V.; Gunay-Polatkan, S.; Isik, O.; Sigirli, D. Using the Cardiac– Electrophysiological Balance Index to Predict Arrhythmia Risk After Colonoscopy. Medicina 2025, 61, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ medicina61010013 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Using the Cardiac–Electrophysiological Balance Index to Predict Arrhythmia Risk After Colonoscopy Seyit Ali Volkan Polatkan 1,*, Seyda Gunay-Polatkan 2, Ozgen Isik 1 and Deniz Sigirli 3 1 Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Bursa Uludag University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey; ozgenisik@uludag.edu.tr 2 Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bursa Uludag University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey; seydagunay@uludag.edu.tr 3 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Bursa Uludag University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey; sigirli@uludag.edu.tr * Correspondence: volkanpolatkan@uludag.edu.tr Abstract: Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer- related deaths in the U.S., and colonoscopy is a critical tool for colon cancer screening and diagnosis. Electrolyte disturbances and autonomic nervous system dysfunction that may occur due to bowel preparation and the colonoscopy procedure itself may play a role in the development of cardiac arrhythmia. This study aimed to assess the index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance (iCEB) to predict ventricular arrhythmia risk related to colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with a normal sinus rhythm were included. Electrocardiography (ECG) recordings both before bowel preparation and after the colonoscopy procedure were obtained. Values of the index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance (iCEB) were compared. Results: Among 36 patients, it was determined that the heart rate values of the patients before bowel preparation were higher than the heart rate values after colonoscopy [74.5 (60–108) bpm vs. 68.5 (53–108) bpm, p = 0.021]. The duration of QT interval increased (370.9 ± 27.8 ms vs. 398.7 ± 29.4 ms, p < 0.001) and the iCEB increased from 4.1 ± 0.5 to 4.5 ± 0.6 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant post-procedural risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Conclusions: These findings suggest that routine iCEB assessment post-colonoscopy could identify high-risk patients requiring closer monitoring. Keywords: colonoscopy; bowel preparation; arrhythmia; heart; electrolyte 1. Introduction Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. [1]. Colonoscopy is a critical tool for colon cancer screening and diagnosis globally, with over 15 million procedures conducted annually in the U.S. [2]. The effectiveness of colonoscopy is largely determined by the quality of colonic mucosa visualization [3]. Residual fecal matter can obstruct the view of colorectal lesions, highlighting the necessity of adequate bowel preparation. Various bowel preparation agents have been developed to improve imaging, including high-volume and low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sulfate- free PEG–electrolyte solutions [4,5]. Despite their general tolerance, bowel preparation agents can lead to adverse effects such as electrolyte imbalances and, less commonly, serious cardiac events like heart failure exacerbations, arrhythmias, and cardiac arrest [6–10]. Additional neuronal factors aside from electrolyte disturbances, including elevated sympathetic and parasympathetic activity, Medicina 2025, 61, 13 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61010013 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61010013 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61010013 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/medicina https://www.mdpi.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9541-5035 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61010013 https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina61010013?type=check_update&version=1 Medicina 2025, 61, 13 2 of 9 are also present, and the simultaneous activation of both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems is a known trigger for cardiac arrhythmia [11–15]. Cardiac ECG changes related to colonoscopy are typically benign and transient, such as ST-segment and T-wave changes [16]. However, severe cases, including polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation related with colonoscopy, have been reported [17,18]. Although such severe arrhythmias are rare and usually occur in high- risk patients with comorbidities or significant electrolyte disturbances [17–19], Kajy et al. documented new-onset supraventricular tachycardia in patients with normal electrolyte panels and without a history of cardiac arrhythmia [20]. Even though electrolyte disturbances due to bowel preparation are often asymp- tomatic, individuals with pre-existing cardiac or renal conditions are at higher risk for arrhythmias due to an electrolyte imbalance. Ho JM et al. observed an increased risk of hypokalemia following bowel preparation in older patients [21]. Additionally, excessive fluid intake with low dietary solutes can lead to hyponatremia [22,23]. There are a few research studies which have looked at how serum electrolyte levels differ before and after bowel preparation [24,25]. As the current guidelines do not include recommendations for pre- or post-colonoscopy electrolyte measurement [26], undetected but present electrolyte abnormalities may trigger arrhythmias both in hospital and even after discharge [27]. It is well known that most research excludes older adults and patients with renal or car- diac disease, and this causes real-life risks in these high-risk groups to be overlooked [28,29]. As the number of colonoscopies for screening and surveillance increase, the number of high-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures will also increase. Some patients who are discharged on the same day after a colonoscopy procedure may be discharged with unnoticed health conditions which may trigger cardiac arrhythmia. Because of this, simple, non-invasive, and easily accessible electrocardiographic parameters could be valu- able for identifying patients at risk of arrhythmias before discharge. The QT interval, which reflects ventricular depolarization and repolarization, is a well-known ECG param- eter that can be used to assess the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias [30]. The index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance (iCEB) is a relatively new and more sensitive risk marker for malignant arrhythmias. The iCEB focuses on the balance between contraction and relaxation, whereas the QT interval represents a single cycle of ventricular contraction and relaxation. Researchers have reported that the iCEBc was altered more significantly and earlier than the patient’s corresponding change in QTc [31,32]. This study aimed to evaluate the index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance (iCEB) to evaluate arrhythmia risk in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy before discharge. 2. Material and Method 2.1. Study Design In this prospective, observational, single-center study, we included adult pa- tients undergoing elective colonoscopy for cancer screening or follow-up between 25 September 2023 and 1 March 2024. All participants had a normal sinus rhythm. We excluded individuals with atrial fibrillation, pre-excitation findings, bundle branch blocks, atrioventricular blocks, or a pacemaker rhythm. Patients who were on QT-prolonging medications or had a history of cardiac arrhythmias or heart failure were also excluded. We documented clinical characteristics, recorded ECGs before bowel preparation and after colonoscopy, noted comorbidities, and collected laboratory data. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Bursa Uludag University (approval number 2023-17/41, dated 19 September 2023). All data were fully anonymized before access and a signed informed written consent form was obtained from all participants. Medicina 2025, 61, 13 3 of 9 2.2. ECG Examination Each participant underwent a 12-lead ECG using a GE Healthcare MAC 200 Resting ECG System (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) both before bowel preparation and after the colonoscopy procedure. The ECG was recorded at a paper speed of 50 mm/s. The scanned ECG images were loaded into a computer and analyzed using Adobe Photoshop CS6 software (Adobe Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Two cardiologists independently reviewed the ECGs manually. Measurements were taken from lead II and lead V5. Key ECG parameters including the QRS interval, QT interval, corrected QT (QTc) interval, iCEB, and corrected iCEB (iCEBc) were calculated. The QRS interval was measured from the end of the PR interval to the end of the S-wave. R–R intervals were determined by measuring the time between consecutive R peaks. The QT interval was calculated from the start of the QRS complex to the end of the T wave [33] and corrected for heart rate using the Bazett formula (QTcB = QT/ √ RR) [34]. iCEB was computed by dividing the QT interval by the QRS duration (QT/QRS), and iCEBc was derived by dividing the QTc interval by the QRS duration [QTc/QRS] [31,32]. 2.3. Statistical Analysis The normality of data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Data that followed a normal distribution were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Paired sample t-tests were used for comparisons between two dependent groups for normally distributed variables. Data that were not normally distributed were presented as the median (Q1–Q3) and analyzed using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. Categorical data were described with counts and percentages. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0. 3. Results Among the 36 patients who underwent elective colonoscopy, 16 patients (44.4%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 55.1 ± 11.2 years. Serum electrolyte levels of all patients were in a normal range. The clinical and laboratory findings are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Baseline clinical characteristics of study population. Variable Descriptive Statistics Age, years * 55.08 ± 11.23 Sex ** Male, n (%) 20 (55.56) Female, n (%) 16 (44.44) Diabetes mellitus ** 6 (16.67) Hypertension ** 9 (25.00) Hyperlipidemia ** 1 (2.78) Coronary artery disease ** 3 (8.33) Heart failure ** 0 (0.00) Malignancy ** 28 (77.78) Urea *, mg/dL 29.68 ± 8.04 Creatinine ***, mg/dL 0.80 (0.50–1.20) Glomerular filtration rate *, mL/dk/1.73 m2 94.62 ± 16.04 Sodium ***, mmol/L 139.50 (137–145) Medicina 2025, 61, 13 4 of 9 Table 1. Cont. Variable Descriptive Statistics Potassium *, mmol/L 4.49 ± 0.36 Calcium *, mg/dL 9.31 ± 0.48 Chloride *, mmol/L 105.68 ± 2.10 Glucose *, mg/dL 100.78 ± 15.74 White blood cell *, 109/L 6.85 ± 2.09 Hemoglobin *, g/dL 13.37 ± 1.83 Platelets *, 109/L 227.35 ± 69.49 Data given as the * mean ± standard deviation, ** n (%), or *** median (minimum value–maximum value). It was determined that the heart rate values of the patients before bowel preparation were higher than the heart rate values after colonoscopy (median (minimum–maximum), 74.5 (60–108) bpm vs. 68.5 (53–108) bpm, p = 0.021). While QRS durations were sim- ilar (median (minimum–maximum), 91.0 (73–120) ms vs. 90.5 (74–132) ms, p = 0.317), the increase in the duration of QT interval was statistically significant (mean ± [SD], 370.9 ± 27.8 ms vs. 398.7 ± 29.4 ms, p < 0.001). Also, the values of both iCEB (mean ± [SD], 4.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and iCEBc (mean ± [SD], 4.4 ± 0.5 vs. 4.8 ± 0.7, p <0.001) were higher in the post-colonoscopy group. The ECG parameters of the study population are listed in Table 2 and Figure 1. Medicina 2025, 61, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9 Figure 1. Change in ventricular repolarization parameters after colonoscopy ((A) for iCEB and iCEBc, (B) for QT and QTc intervals). Points and error bars represent mean ± 1 standard deviation. 4. Discussion Our study revealed that, alongside the QT and QTc intervals, both iCEB and iCEBc statistically significantly increased after the colonoscopy procedure. In the literature, there is previous research reporting an increased iCEB related to cardiac arrhythmia risk in pa- tients with various medical conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, renal failure, and COVID-19 [35–38]. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate the change in iCEB in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Three fundamental mechanisms underlie the pathophysiology of cardiac arrhyth- mias: (1) increased or decreased automaticity, (2) triggered activity, or (3) re-entry. Auto- maticity can be suppressed or enhanced by a number of factors, such as heart ischemia, heart failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, medications, aging, and anxiety. Multi- ple arrhythmias for both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias may arise from increased au- tomaticity. The triggered activity, which typically follows earlier and delayed depolariza- tions, causes repeated spontaneous depolarizations and precipitates ventricular arrhyth- mias [27]. Colonoscopy remains the preferred method for evaluating the colon, and the proce- dure may be associated with the development of cardiac arrhythmias because bowel prep- aration prior to colonoscopy may trigger dehydration and an electrolyte imbalance. In addition, the colonoscopy procedure affects the autonomic nervous system. Procedural anxiety triggers sympathetic activity, while parasympathetic activity is also increased due to increased gastrointestinal motility and increased levels of colonic secretions [11–14]. Figure 1. Change in ventricular repolarization parameters after colonoscopy ((A) for iCEB and iCEBc, (B) for QT and QTc intervals). Points and error bars represent mean ± 1 standard deviation. Medicina 2025, 61, 13 5 of 9 Table 2. ECG parameters of the study population. ECG Parameter Pre-Colonoscopy Post-Colonoscopy p-Value Heart rate, bpm ** 74.5 (60–108) 68.5 (53–108) 0.021 QRS duration, ms ** 91.0 (73–120) 90.5 (74–132) 0.317 P wave axis, degree * 57.2 ± 14.6 55.8 ± 14.1 0.598 QRS complex axis, degree * 32.3 ±34.9 19.4 ± 31.3 <0.001 T wave axis, degree ** 43 (−67–124) 30.5 (−15–100) 0.021 PR interval, ms * 153.1 ±18.1 153.3 ± 18.3 0.919 QT interval, ms * 370.9 ± 27.8 398.7 ± 29.4 <0.001 QTc, interval, ms * 403.3 ± 24.2 427.4 ± 27.1 <0.001 iCEB * 4.1 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.6 <0.001 iCEBc * 4.4 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.7 <0.001 bpm: beats per minute; ms: milliseconds; QTc: corrected QT; iCEB: index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance; iCEBc: corrected index of cardiac–electrophysiological balance. Data given as the * mean ± standard deviationor ** median (minimum value–maximum value). 4. Discussion Our study revealed that, alongside the QT and QTc intervals, both iCEB and iCEBc statistically significantly increased after the colonoscopy procedure. In the literature, there is previous research reporting an increased iCEB related to cardiac arrhythmia risk in patients with various medical conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, renal failure, and COVID-19 [35–38]. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate the change in iCEB in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Three fundamental mechanisms underlie the pathophysiology of cardiac arrhythmias: (1) increased or decreased automaticity, (2) triggered activity, or (3) re-entry. Automaticity can be suppressed or enhanced by a number of factors, such as heart ischemia, heart failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, medications, aging, and anxiety. Multiple arrhythmias for both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias may arise from increased automaticity. The triggered activity, which typically follows earlier and delayed depolarizations, causes repeated spontaneous depolarizations and precipitates ventricular arrhythmias [27]. Colonoscopy remains the preferred method for evaluating the colon, and the procedure may be associated with the development of cardiac arrhythmias because bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy may trigger dehydration and an electrolyte imbalance. In addition, the colonoscopy procedure affects the autonomic nervous system. Procedural anxiety triggers sympathetic activity, while parasympathetic activity is also increased due to increased gastrointestinal motility and increased levels of colonic secretions [11–14]. Furthermore, some patients undergoing colonoscopy are at risk for arrhythmias because they are older and have comorbidities, as exemplified above. Electrolyte imbalances associated with colonoscopy may include hyponatremia, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, and hypomagnesemia [21,39,40]. While most electrolyte disturbances due to bowel preparation are asymptomatic, symptomatic and even fatal cases have been documented [41–45]. Reumkens A. et al. reported that 23.6% of “high-risk” patients experienced hypokalemia following bowel preparation, with two cases of severe post-colonoscopy hypokalemia leading to fatal ventricular arrhythmias [44,46]. Mild hy- pokalemia is often asymptomatic, but more severe cases can be symptomatic, including constipation, fatigue, and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias [47–49]. The risk profiles for patients developing hypokalemia after bowel preparation are not well established, though elderly and dehydrated patients may be more susceptible [50]. Patients with heart failure, cardiac ischemia, or a history of arrhythmias are known to be at a higher risk of Medicina 2025, 61, 13 6 of 9 fatal arrhythmias when they are hypokalemic [49]. Physicians who perform colonoscopy should be aware of high-risk health conditions and drugs affecting serum electrolyte lev- els (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, etc.). Even though current clinical guidelines do not rec- ommend electrolyte measurement either before or after bowel preparation for colonoscopy, it is important to consider that patients with known comorbidities and even those with unknown health conditions may be at high risk. Ugajin et al. reported a case of ventricular fibrillation during colonoscopy [18]. With the increasing number of colonoscopies for screening and follow-up, the prevalence of elderly patients—those with comorbidities and unknown health conditions—undergoing colonoscopies is expected to rise. In daily practice, there are many different bowel preparation solutions. Some solutions can cause more significant electrolyte imbalances for high-risk patients. Saphira Z. et al. emphasized the importance of selecting the least harmful bowel preparation solution [50]. In our study, all participants used only one type of bowel preparation agent (X-M Diet solution) for bowel preparation. Because of this, we could not compare how different solutions affected ECG parameters. Colonoscopy under conscious sedation can diminish patient anxiety caused by the procedure. Midazolam and propofol, alone or combined with opioids, are commonly used [51,52]. When colonoscopy is performed with sedation, it should be kept in mind that anesthetic agents may also have arrhythmogenic effects [53]. Even though the patients included in our study were not specifically selected from high-risk patients with high arrhythmia potential, the study results were still statistically significant. In the literature, the limit value for a critical increase in QT value is stated as 500 ms [54]. In our study, although the mean QT and QTc values did not exceed 500 ms, there was a statistically significant increase in the values after colonoscopy compared to before colonoscopy. In patients who underwent colonoscopy, ambulatory rhythm record- ings should be made after the procedure to search for new cut-off values of both QT and iCEB to provide a more accurate assessment for this population. Future studies focusing on high-risk patients may provide stronger evidence regarding the utility of iCEB in detecting arrhythmia risk. Study Limitations This study’s primary limitation is that it was conducted in a single center with a small sample size. Because only one type of bowel preparation agent was used, the effect of different agents could not be compared. Additionally, patients were not monitored in the post-discharge period for procedure-related arrhythmias; 24 h Holter monitoring could have been more effective to uncover the silent cardiac arrhythmias related to colonoscopy. 5. Conclusions Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often older, have more comorbid conditions, and are prescribed multiple medications. Data about complications such as electrolyte disturbances and cardiac arrhythmia related to bowel preparation and the colonoscopy procedure are limited and warrant further investigation. A quick and simple tool to assess arrhythmia risk is needed. ECG assessment of iCEB before discharge should be considered, especially for high-risk patients in routine care. Further multicenter studies with a large sample size including high-risk patients and long-term monitoring assessment are needed. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.A.V.P., S.G.-P. and O.I.; methodology, S.A.V.P. and D.S.; formal analysis, D.S.; investigation, S.A.V.P., S.G.-P. and O.I.; resources, S.A.V.P. and O.I.; data curation, S.A.V.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.V.P. and S.G.-P.; writing—review and editing, S.A.V.P., S.G.-P., D.S. and O.I.; supervision, S.A.V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Medicina 2025, 61, 13 7 of 9 Funding: This study received no grant funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for- profit sectors. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests in this manuscript. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee) of Bursa Uludag University, Faculty of Medicine (protocol code 2023-17/41 and date of approval 19 September 2023). Informed Consent Statement: A signed informed written consent form was obtained from all participants. Data Availability Statement: All data are available without any restriction. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. References 1. Siegel, R.L.; Wagle, N.S.; Cercek, A.; Smith, R.A.; Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2023, 73, 233–254. [CrossRef] 2. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Goding Sauer, A.; Fedewa, S.A.; Butterly, L.F.; Anderson, J.C.; Cercek, A.; Smith, R.A.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Novick, D.M. A Gastroenterologist’s Guide to Gut Health: Everything You Need to Know About Colonoscopy, Digestive Diseases, and Healthy Eating; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2017. 4. Zawaly, K.; Rumbolt, C.; Abou-Setta, A.M.; Neilson, C.; Rabbani, R.; Zarychanski, R.; Singh, H. The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 114, 884–892. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Brown, A.R.; DiPalma, J.A. Bowel preparation for gastrointestinal procedures. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2004, 6, 395–401. [CrossRef] 6. Shaukat, A.; Kahi, C.J.; Burke, C.A.; Rabeneck, L.; Sauer, B.G.; Rex, D.K. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 458–479. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Kim, S.Y.; Kim, H.S.; Park, H.J. Adverse events related to colonoscopy: Global trends and future challenges. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 190–204. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Ashraf, S.; Singh, M.; Singh, M.; Afonso, L. Polyethylene glycol preparation for colonoscopy associated with heart failure exacerbation. Am. J. Ther. 2018, 25, e495–e496. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Marschall, H.U.; Bartels, F. Life-threatening complications of nasogastric administration of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solutions (Golytely) for bowel cleansing. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1998, 47, 408–410. [CrossRef] 10. Mo, Y.; Gandhi, S.; Orsini, J. Possible GoLytely-associated cardiac arrest: A case report and literature review. J. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 33, 364–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 11. Zipes, D.P.; Mihalick, M.J.; Robbins, G.T. Effects of selective vagal and stellate ganglion stimulation on atrial refractoriness. Cardiovasc. Res. 1974, 8, 647–655. [CrossRef] 12. Spear, J.F.; Moore, E.N. Influence of brief vagal and stellate nerve stimulation on pacemaker activity and conduction within the atrioventricular conduction system of the dog. Circ. Res. 1973, 32, 27–41. [CrossRef] 13. Hirose, M.; Leatmanoratn, Z.; Laurita, K.R.; Carlson, M.D. Partial vagal denervation increases vulnerability to vagally induced atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2002, 13, 1272–1279. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Yang, C.; Sriranjan, V.; Abou-Setta, A.M.; Poluha, W.; Walker, J.R.; Singh, H. Anxiety Associated with Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. A Systematic Review. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 113, 1810–1818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Chen, P.S.; Chen, L.S.; Fishbein, M.C.; Lin, S.F.; Nattel, S. Role of the autonomic nervous system in atrial fibrillation: Pathophysiol- ogy and therapy. Circ. Res. 2014, 114, 1500–1515. [CrossRef] 16. Alam, M.; Schuman, B.M.; Duvernoy, W.F.; Madrazo, A.C. Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1976, 22, 203–205. [CrossRef] 17. Ho, J.M.; Cavalcanti, R.B. A shocking bowel prep: Severe electrolyte disturbances following polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2009, 57, 1729–1730. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Ugajin, T.; Miyatani, H.; Momomura, S.; Sanui, M.; Nakashima, Y.; Yoshida, Y. Ventricular fibrillation during colonoscopy: a case report--colonoscopy in high-risk patients should be performed with ECG monitoring. Intern Med. 2008, 47, 609–612. [CrossRef] 19. Hassan, C.; Condorelli, G.; Repici, A. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy and hypokalemia: At the heart of the problem! Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 680–683. [CrossRef] 20. Kajy, M.; Ramappa, P. A Galvanizing Solution: Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation as a Trigger for Supraventricular Tachycardia. Ann. Pharmacother. 2022, 56, 297–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 21. Ho, J.M.; Juurlink, D.N.; Cavalcanti, R.B. Hypokalemia following polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy in older hospitalized patients with significant comorbidities. Ann. Pharmacother. 2010, 44, 466–470. [CrossRef] [PubMed] https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21772 https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31912902 https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000155 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30865011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-004-0056-8 https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33657038 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i2.190 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30670909 https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000000582 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28786822 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(98)70229-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190019825965 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30727797 https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/8.5.647 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.32.1.27 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2002.01272.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12521345 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41395-018-0398-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30385831 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303772 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(76)73754-4 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02416.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19895448 https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.47.0559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.1541 https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280211023808 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34121474 https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1M341 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20124467 Medicina 2025, 61, 13 8 of 9 22. Cho, Y.S.; Nam, K.M.; Park, J.H.; Byun, S.H.; Ryu, J.S.; Kim, H.J. Acute hyponatremia with seizure and mental change after oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate bowel preparation. Ann. Coloproctol. 2014, 30, 290–293. [CrossRef] 23. Cohen, C.D.; Keuneke, C.; Schiemann, U.; Schroppel, B.; Siegert, S.; Rascher, W.; Gross, M.; Schlondorff, D. Hyponatraemia as a complication of colonoscopy. Lancet 2001, 357, 282–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Di Nardo, G.; Aloi, M.; Cucchiara, S.; Spada, C.; Hassan, C.; Civitelli, F.; Nuti, F.; Ziparo, C.; Pession, A.; Lima, M.; et al. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: An RCT. Pediatrics 2014, 134, 249–256. [CrossRef] 25. Lee, K.J.; Park, H.J.; Kim, H.S.; Baik, K.H.; Kim, Y.S.; Park, S.C.; Seo, H.I. Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 3041–3048. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Hassan, C.; Bretthauer, M.; Kaminski, M.F.; Polkowski, M.; Rembacken, B.; Saunders, B.; Benamouzig, R.; Holme, O.; Green, S.; Kuiper, T.; et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013, 45, 142–150. [CrossRef] 27. Fu, D.G. Cardiac Arrhythmias: Diagnosis, Symptoms, and Treatments. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2015, 73, 291–296. [CrossRef] 28. Mathus-Vliegen, E.M.; Kemble, U.M. A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006, 23, 543–552. [CrossRef] 29. Seinelä, L.; Pehkonen, E.; Laasanen, T.; Ahvenainen, J. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy in very old patients: A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 38, 216–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Roden, D.M. A current understanding of drug-induced QT prolongation and its implications for anticancer therapy. Cardiovasc. Res. 2019, 115, 895–903. [CrossRef] 31. Liu, Q.; Yuan, X.; Sheng, C.; Cai, W.; Geng, X.; Liu, H.; Song, S. Effect of long-term use of antipsychotics on the ventricular repolarization index. BMC Psychiatry 2024, 24, 505. [CrossRef] 32. Robyns, T.; Lu, H.R.; Gallacher, D.J.; Garweg, C.; Ector, J.; Willems, R.; Janssens, S.; Nuyens, D. Evaluation of index of cardio- electrophysiological balance (iCEB) as a new biomarker for the identification of patients at increased arrhythmic risk. Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2016, 21, 294–304. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Garson, A., Jr. How to measure the QT interval: What is normal? Am. J. Cardiol. 1993, 72, 14B–16B. [CrossRef] 34. Bazett, H.C. An analysis of the time-relations of the electrocardiograms. Heart 1920, 7, 353–370. [CrossRef] 35. Asoglu, R.; Tibilli, H.; Asoglu, E.; Aladag, N.; Ozdemir, M.; Suner, A. Evaluation of index of cardiac electrophysiological balance in COVID-19 patients. Bratisl. Lek. Listy 2021, 122, 598–604. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Zhang, Y.T.; Li, H.Y.; Sun, X.T.; Tong, X.W.; Shan, Y.Y.; Xu, Y.X.; Pu, S.D.; Gao, X.Y. Relationship Between Index of Cardiac Electrophysiological Balance, Frontal QRS-T Angle and Retinopathy in People with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2023, 16, 861–871. [CrossRef] 37. Lin, Y.; Zhou, F.; Wang, X.; Guo, Y.; Chen, W. Effect of the index of cardiac electrophysiological balance on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes complicated with coronary heart disease. PeerJ 2023, 11, e15969. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38. Sivri, S.; Çelik, M. Evaluation of index of cardiac-electrophysiological balance before and after hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. J. Electrocardiol. 2019, 54, 72–75. [CrossRef] 39. Florentin, M.; Elisaf, M. Colonoscopy-associated electrolyte and renal disorders. World J. Gastrointest. Pharmacol. Ther. 2014, 5, 50–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 40. Schröppel, B.; Segerer, S.; Keuneke, C.; Cohen, C.D.; Schlöndorff, D. Hyponatremic encephalopathy after preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2001, 53, 527–529. [CrossRef] 41. Dillon, C.E.; Laher, M.S. The rapid development of hyponatraemia and seizures in an elderly patient following sodium picosul- fate/magnesium citrate (Picolax). Age Ageing 2009, 38, 487–488. [CrossRef] 42. Windpessl, M.; Kronbichler, A.; Watschinger, B. Hyponatremic encephalopathy and rhabdomyolysis. Complications after preparation for colonoscopy with mannitol. BMC Nephrol. 2017, 18, 54. 43. Veitenhansl, M.; Reisch, N.; Schmauss, S.; Wörnle, M.; Gärtner, R. Hyponatraemic encephalopathy and rhabdomyolysis: Complications after preparation for colonoscopy with mannitol. Internist 2007, 48, 625–629. [CrossRef] 44. Reumkens, A.; Masclee, A.A.; Bakker, C.M. Postcolonoscopy mortality: Bowel preparation to blame? Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 744–745. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Lichtenstein, G. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A review. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2009, 66, 27–37. [CrossRef] 46. Reumkens, A.; Masclee, A.A.; Winkens, B.; van Deursen, C.T.; Sanduleanu, S.; Bakker, C.M. Prevalence of hypokalemia before and after bowel preparation for colonoscopy in high-risk patients. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 673–679. [CrossRef] 47. Tan, J.J.; Tjandra, J.J. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy- a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2006, 8, 247–258. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Hoorn, E.J.; Tuut, M.K.; Hoorntje, S.J.; van Saase, J.L.; Zietse, R.; Geers, A.B. Dutch guideline for the management of electrolyte disorders—2012 revision. Neth. J. Med. 2013, 71, 153–165. https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.6.290 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03619-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11214135 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-0131 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3041 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780304 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1326186 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-015-0626-4 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02777.x https://doi.org/10.1080/00365520310000726 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12678340 https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvz013 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05947-1 https://doi.org/10.1111/anec.12309 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26305685 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(93)90034-A https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-474X.1997.tb00325.x https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2021_096 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34282628 https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S403210 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15969 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37818331 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.03.011 https://doi.org/10.4292/wjgpt.v5.i2.50 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24868484 https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.113274 https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afp054 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-007-1815-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28917349 https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp080084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.040 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.00970.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16630226 Medicina 2025, 61, 13 9 of 9 49. Cohn, J.N.; Kowey, P.R.; Whelton, P.K.; Prisant, L.M. New guidelines for potassium replacement in clinical practice: A contempo- rary review by the National Council on Potassium. Arch. Intern. Med. 2000, 160, 2429–2436. [CrossRef] 50. Shapira, Z.; Feldman, L.; Lavy, R.; Weissgarten, J.; Haitov, Z.; Halevy, A. Bowel preparation: Comparing metabolic and electrolyte changes when using sodium phosphate/polyethylene glycol. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 356–358. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Cohen, L.B.; Wecsler, J.S.; Gaetano, J.N.; Benson, A.A.; Miller, K.M.; Durkalski, V.; Aisenberg, J. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: Results from a nationwide survey. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 967–974. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Froehlich, F.; Harris, J.K.; Wietlisbach, V.; Burnand, B.; Vader, J.P.; Gonvers, J.J.; The EPAGE Study Group. Current sedation and monitoring practice for colonoscopy: An International Observational Study (EPAGE). Endoscopy 2006, 38, 461–469. [CrossRef] 53. Hume-Smith, H.V.; Sanatani, S.; Lim, J.; Chau, A.; Whyte, S.D. The effect of propofol concentration on dispersion of myocardial repolarization in children. Anest. Analg. 2008, 107, 806–810. [CrossRef] 54. Gibbs, C.; Thalamus, J.; Kristoffersen, D.T.; Svendsen, M.V.; Holla, Ø.L.; Heldal, K.; Haugaa, K.H.; Hysing, J. QT prolongation predicts short-term mortality independent of comorbidity. Europace 2019, 21, 1254–1260. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.16.2429 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.04.009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20457286 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00500.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16573781 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-925368 https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181815ce3 https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz058 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31220237 Introduction Material and Method Study Design ECG Examination Statistical Analysis Results Discussion Conclusions References