Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jul 19;18(7):e0288756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288756

Treatment-induced increase in total body potassium in patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias; a randomized POTCAST substudy

Ulrik Winsløw 1,*, Tharsika Sakthivel 1, Chaoqun Zheng 1, Helle Bosselmann 4, Ketil Haugan 4, Niels Bruun 4,5, Charlotte Larroudé 3, Kasper Iversen 3,5, Hillah Saffi 1, Emil Frandsen 1, Peter Oturai 2, Holger Jan Jensen 2, Michael Vinther 1, Niels Risum 1, Henning Bundgaard 1,5, Christian Jøns 1
Editor: Yoshihiro Fukumoto6
PMCID: PMC10355384  PMID: 37467227

Abstract

Objective

Hypokalemia is associated with increased risk of arrhythmias and it is recommended to monitor plasma potassium (p-K) regularly in at-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases. It is poorly understood if administration of potassium supplements and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) aimed at increasing p-K also increases intracellular potassium.

Methods

Adults aged≥18 years with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were randomized (1:1) to a control group or to an intervention that included guidance on potassium rich diets, potassium supplements, and MRA to increase p-K to target levels of 4.5–5.0 mmol/l for six months. Total-body-potassium (TBK) was measured by a Whole-Body-Counter along with p-K at baseline, after six weeks, and after six months.

Results

Fourteen patients (mean age: 59 years (standard deviation 14), 79% men) were included. Mean p-K was 3.8 mmol/l (0.2), and mean TBK was 1.50 g/kg (0.20) at baseline. After six-weeks, p-K had increased by 0.47 mmol/l (95%CI:0.14;0.81), p = 0.008 in the intervention group compared to controls, whereas no significant difference was found in TBK (44 mg/kg (-20;108), p = 0.17). After six-months, no significant difference was found in p-K as compared to baseline (0.16 mmol/l (-0.18;0.51), p = 0.36), but a significant increase in TBK of 82 mg/kg (16;148), p = 0.017 was found in the intervention group compared to controls.

Conclusions

Increased potassium intake and MRAs increased TBK gradually and a significant increase was seen after six months. The differentially regulated p-K and TBK challenges current knowledge on potassium homeostasis and the time required before the full potential of p-K increasing treatment can be anticipated.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03833089).

Introduction

Plasma potassium (p-K) is one of the most commonly measured parameters in the healthcare sector [1]. Detrimental effects of changes in p-K are seen in numerous conditions and disorders and may be induced by several drugs [24]. Notably, hypokalemia has been reported in up to 20% of hospitalized patients and is associated with significantly increased risk of developing malignant ventricular arrythmias and atrial fibrillation [5, 6]. Patients with certain cardiovascular diseases are particularly sensitive to hypokalemia [2, 7]. The general importance of the potassium homeostasis is underscored by observational studies, drug trials as well as a recent randomized trial showing that increased potassium intake improves survival [810], whereas drugs that induce potassium loss such as non-potassium sparing diuretics have been shown to increase the risk of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias [11, 12]. Overall, a U shaped relationship has been found between p-K and mortality in several observational studies of patients with heart failure as well as in the general population that consistently show lowest risk around the mid-normal to high-normal p-K levels [1315].

In myocardial cells, changes in extracellular and intracellular potassium levels modulates cellular membrane potential, depolarization velocity and automaticity, as well as repolarization time and refractory periods, in particular in patients with reduced repolarization reserve [2]. Approximately 98% of total body potassium is located intracellularly and the transmembraneous concentration gradient is regulated by ion channels and the Na,K ATPase. The activity of the Na,K-ATPase is regulated by feedback-loops that control fluid balance, adrenergic and glycemic levels as well as pH buffer systems, that are able to rapidly shift potassium between the extracellular and the intracellular space [1618]. These minute-to-minute regulations make p-K a volatile parameter and likely a poor indicator of total body potassium (TBK). TBK includes potassium in bones and other structural tissues with slower metabolism, and if TBK deposits increase at a slow rate, it may be necessary to continue potassium-increasing therapy for an extended period to reach new steady state levels. In contrast, if TBK is not increased, the clinical effect of potassium supplementation may mainly be related to the changes in p-K and should be adjusted accordingly. Improved knowledge of the regulation of TBK may disclose novel targets for interventions in disorders and conditions known to be sensitive to changes in p-K.

A Whole-Body Counter (WBC) approach is used to accurately estimate human TBK in vivo. The current study was designed to determine if TBK can be increased actively using dietary guidance, potassium supplements and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and to determine how the rate and magnitude of these changes correlate to changes in p-K.

Materials and methods

Population

This single-center study was conducted between January and December 2021 as a substudy to the POTCAST trial at the Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Details, background and design of the ongoing POTCAST trial have been published previously [19]. The purpose of the POTCAST trial is to investigate if high-normal potassium level reduces the incidence of malignant tachyarrhythmias and death. In brief, the POTCAST trial is a randomized, open-labelled, clinical trial enrolling 1,000 patients at high-risk of malignant arrhythmias as defined by clinically driven treatment with a primary or secondary preventive implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Patients are randomized (1:1) through a concealed computer-generated sequence (project-RedCap.org), to either the control group or an intervention that includes a potassium-rich dietary guidance and daily intake of oral potassium supplements and MRAs with the aim to increase and maintain p-K at target levels of 4.5–5.0 mmol/l. In the current open-labelled substudy consecutive participants from the POTCAST trial were included.

Inclusion criteria for the main trial are a baseline p-K ≤4.3 mmol/l, age ≥18 years, and treatment with an ICD in accordance with clinical guidelines. Patients are excluded if they have severe renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 ml/min/1.73 m2), are pregnant, or are unable to provide informed consent.

Criteria for inclusion in the present substudy were similar, except a baseline p-K ≤4.0 mmol/l. We excluded patients with claustrophobia and patients undergoing radiation treatment (e.g., radioiodine therapy) six months prior or nuclear medicine imaging three months prior to inclusion to avoid interference with the Whole-Body-Counter.

Screening for inclusion and patient flow

Patients included in the main study were screened with baseline blood sampling (hemoglobin, p-K+, p-Na+, p-Ca2+, p-Mg2+, creatine, and aspartate transaminase), blood pressure measurement, ECG recordings, and echocardiography. Patients fulfilling in- and exclusion criteria in the present substudy were scheduled for baseline measurements of TBK by Whole-Body-Counter after written informed consent was obtained. Baseline measurements of TBK were done twice for each patient on two consecutive days as soon as possible after screening to reduce noise-variance. Patients were then randomized 1:1 to either the intervention- or control group after the first set of TBK measurements had been obtained to ensure that baseline measurements were performed before any intervention or group-specific behavioral changes. The intervention was then initiated and follow-up TBK measurements were performed six weeks and six months after baseline measurement in both the control and intervention group along with repeated blood laboratory testing. Whenever possible, the follow-up visits were scheduled at approximately the same time of day as the baseline visit for each patient, to reduce the potential effects of circadian variation or the pharmacokinetics of the other daily medications on TBK and p-K measurements. All TBK and p-K analyses were done by technicians blinded to the patient’s study group assignment. A CONSORT flow-chart of patient inclusion and follow-up is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. CONSORT flow-chart of patient inclusion and follow-up.

Fig 1

Intervention

Between baseline and the six-week follow-up, the intervention group was given guidance on intake of a potassium rich diets along with potassium supplements and MRA (spironolactone or eplerenone) with the aim to increase and maintain p-K at target levels between 4.5–5.0 mmol/l according to the design of the POTCAST trial [19]. Patients were uptitrated until target p-K was reached or until maximally tolerated doses of potassium supplement (up to 4,500 mg ~ 60 mmol daily) and MRA (up to 100 mg daily) were given. Blood pressure and renal function were monitored during up-titration. Patients were asked to maintain the reached dose throughout the duration of the trial. Patients randomized to the control group continued usual standard of care. Compliance was assessed by questioning the patients about drug intake at each visit and this was confirmed by prescription fillings through electronic medical records.

Main outcome measures

Between- group difference in changes in TBK and p-K from baseline to six weeks, and from baseline to six months.

Whole-Body-Counter 40K measurement

The Whole-Body Counter (WBC) procedure exploits that naturally occurring potassium exists as three different isotopes; 39K, 40K, and 41K with exact mass percentages of 93.08%, 0.0118% and 6.91%, respectively [20]. The radioactive isotope 40K emits gamma-rays which can be detected by a WBC. The mass percentage distribution of 0.0118% of 40K allows for accurate extrapolation to TBK from these WBC measurements.

In the present study, TBK was estimated using the whole-body scintillation counter (Nuclear Enterprises Ltd, Sighthill, Edinburgh, Scotland) [21, 22] at the Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet. During the scan, four Thallium doped Sodium Iodide scintillation detectors placed in a lead-lined steel chamber were placed over the subject’s chest, over the abdomen, below the neck and below the thighs. The WBC was calibrated with phantoms consisting of plastic containers filled with known precise quantities of potassium chloride solution (5 g/L). These phantoms were individually adjusted in weight and height to the patients being measured [23, 24]. Background radiation was measured before and after each patient measurement.

The patients showered and changed to hospital gowns before entering the lead- and steel-shielded chamber to avoid interference from external contamination. In the chamber the patient was placed in a supine position for 30 minutes while being measured by the WBC. 40K decays directly to 40Ar with the emission of 1.46 million electron volt (MeV) gamma-rays which is detected by the WBC. The examination resulted in an energy spectrum showing number of registered gamma-rays (S1 Fig in S1 File). The amount of 40K in a patient was calculated from AUC analyses (ABACOS-2000, v1.3E, Canberra) at 1.46 MeV after subtraction of background counts. TBK was calculated assuming that 40K constitutes 0.0118% of the naturally occurring potassium in the biosphere.

Ethics

The study was approved by the Regional Danish Committee on Health Research Ethics (Regional Videnskabsetisk Komité)—approval no. H-18044908 and the Danish Data Protection Agency—approval no. VD-2018-453. The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. The limited size of the study was solely based on the sample size calculation as it is, due to ethical considerations, recommended to avoid exposing more patients to trial examinations than what has been shown to be necessary to reach a conclusion.

Statistics

Values are summarized as mean and standard deviation or as median and interquartile range as appropriate. Students t-test or the Kruskal Wallis test were used to compare continuous data. Data was fitted using mixed-effect linear regression models with random intercepts and patient ID as random effect to test the primary hypothesis. A Bland-Altman plot was used to interpret comparability of the two baseline TBK measurements. The assumption of normal distribution of model residuals was tested by Shapiro-Wilk test. For changes in p-K the W statistic was 0.97, P = 0.39 and for TBK the W statistic was 0.96, P = 0.11. Analyses were carried out using standard statistical software (R version 4.1.0).

Sample size calculations

No other observational or clinical trials have investigated the effect sizes of the combination of changes in dietary potassium intake with potassium supplementation and MRA on TBK. However, based on an earlier trial on potassium supplements the study was powered to detect an increase in TBK of 5% [23]. An increase in TBK of 5% from an average of 1.6 g potassium/kg body weight with a standard deviation of the paired difference of 0.05 g potassium/kg body weight a total of 12 patients (6 in each group) were required (two-tailed test, 1-β = 0.8, α = 0.05). To compensate for potential loss-to-follow-up a total of 14 patients were included.

Results

Baseline

Seven patients were randomized to each group. Baseline characteristics of the participants included in the two groups are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 59 years (standard deviation [SD] 14), 11 out of 14 were male, and mean body weight was 89 kg (SD 13). The intervention- and control group were fairly well matched. Of note, the patients had a wide variety of ICD indications. Only one patient in each group was treated with non-potassium sparing diuretics at baseline.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics for patients in the intervention (n = 7) and control group (n = 7).

Intervention group Control group
Age, years 57 (17) 61 (12)
Male gender, n (%) 4 (57) 7 (100)
Body weight, kg 85 (16) 94 (8)
ICD indication, n (%)
    IHD 1 (14) 3 (43)
    HCM 1 (14) 1 (14)
    DCM 1 (14) 0 (0)
    ARVC 3 (43) 0 (0)
    LQTS 0 (0) 1 (14)
    IVF 1 (14) 2 (28)
Medication, n (%)
    Beta-blocker 7 (100) 7 (100)
    ACE inhibitor or ARB 2 (29) 4 (57)
    MRA 0 (0) 1 (14)
    Non-potassium sparing diuretic 1(14) 1(14)
    Potassium supplement 1 (14) 1 (14)
P-Potassium, mmol/l 3.8 (0.1) 3.8 (0.2)
P-Sodium, mmol/l 140 (2.6) 141 (1.9)
P-Magnesium, mmol/l 0.86 (0.05) 0.86 (0.10)
P-Creatinine, μmol/l 73 (15) 80 (11)

Summarized by mean (standard deviation) or number (percent).

ARVC: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, DCM: Dilated cardiomyopathy, HCM: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, IHD: Ischemic heart disease, IVF: Idiopathic VF

LQTS: Long QT syndrome.

From baseline to six-weeks follow-up a mean dose of 61 mg (SD 28) MRA and a mean dose of potassium supplement of 2,678 mg (SD 1,048) ~ 36 mmol were prescribed to the participants in the intervention group. There was an increase in p-K in all patients in the intervention group and three out of seven patients reached target levels of p-K between 4.5–5.0 mmol/l.

One patient was diagnosed with another illness independent of the trial between the six-week- and the six-month follow-up. Due to subsequent diagnostic nuclear isotope imaging that would have affected the WBC measurement, the patient was excluded from the six-month follow-up.

At baseline, mean p-K was 3.8 mmol/l (SD 0.1) in the intervention group and 3.8 mmol/l (SD 0.2) in the control group (P = 0.44). Baseline TBK was 1.44 g/kg (SD 0.23) in the intervention group and 1.56 g/kg (SD 0.17) in controls (P = 0.33).

Six-week follow-up

At six-weeks follow-up mean p-K was 4.5 mmol/l (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 3.9 mmol/l (SD 0.4) in the control group, i.e., p-K was significantly increased in the intervention group compared to the control group with a mean difference in changes of 0.47 mmol/l (95% CI: 0.14; 0.81), P = 0.008. After six weeks, mean TBK was not significantly increased in the intervention group compared to the control group, a mean difference in changes of 0.044 g/kg (-0.02; 0.11), P = 0.17.

Six-month follow-up

At six-months follow-up, TBK was significantly increased in the intervention group compared to the control group with mean difference in changes of 0.082 g/kg (0.016; 0.148), P = 0.017 from baseline (Fig 2A). There were no significant changes in p-K (mean difference 0.16 mmol/l (-0.18; 0.51), P = 0.36 compared to baseline (Fig 2B). The mean TBK and p-K in each study group at baseline, six weeks, and six months are shown in S1 Table in S1 File. There was no difference observed in plasma sodium or plasma magnesium at the six-week or the six-month follow-up compared to baseline (S2 Table in S1 File).

Fig 2. Difference in changes between groups from baseline (reference) at six-weeks, and six-months with 95% intervals of confidence from a mixed linear random effects regression model.

Fig 2

Panel A: TBK, mg/kg. Panel B: p-K, mmol/l.

Reproducibility of TBK measurements with the 40K-WBC approach

At baseline, TBK was measured on two consecutive days in each patient. The mean difference between these measurements was 0.024 g/kg body weight (-0.20; 0.07), P = 0.26. Intraclass correlation: 0.93, P<0.001. A Bland-Altman plot is shown in S2 Fig in S1 File.

Discussion

In this study we showed an increase in TBK over a six-month period using dietary guidance, oral potassium supplements and MRAs in patients with normokalemia at baseline. Furthermore, changes in p-K did not reflect changes in TBK in a simple manner as p-K increased significantly over weeks and was attenuated over months of continued treatment, while TBK increased gradually over the six-month study period. The results indicate the time it takes to accumulate intracellular potassium.

The observed increase in TBK was significantly larger than it would be, if only extracellular potassium levels were increased. Thus, in an adult, the total amount of potassium in the extracellular fluid is on average 50–75 mmol ~ 1,950–2,925 mg. The estimated increase in TBK found in the present study of 82 mg/kg corresponds to 158 mmol ~ 6,150 mg of potassium in a person weighing 75 kg, i.e., more than twice the total amount of potassium in the extracellular space. This, in combination with only a small increase in p-K, makes it is reasonable to conclude that the vast amount of the increase in TBK was accumulated intracellularly.

No other trial has tested the effects of dietary guidance, potassium supplementation and MRAs on TBK, but a few earlier trials have investigated the effects of potassium supplementation when added to non-potassium sparing diuretics. In 1974, Dargie et al. studied groups of six to eight middle-aged patients and showed a non-significant reduction in TBK from 116.6 g (SD 11.4) to 115.8 g (SD 10.2) after four months when potassium supplements was given in combination with non-potassium sparing diuretics [25]. In 1977, MacLennan et al. showed a non-significant decrease in TBK from 57.1 mmol potassium/kg lean-body mass (SD 6.3) to 55.8 mmol potassium/kg lean-body mass (SD 5.8) after three months of potassium supplementation in healthy elderly patients (n = 13) [26]. In those studies, however, a relatively small dose of potassium supplement of 24 mmol and 36 mmol daily, respectively was administered. In 1984, Potter et al. showed that in elderly patients (n = 9) with heart failure TBK increased significantly from 1,975 mmol (SD 148) to 2,103 mmol (SD 144) after treatment with 48 mmol potassium supplementation daily when added to treatment with non-potassium sparing diuretics for at least one month [23]. Of notice, no randomized controls were included in any of these studies. These findings indicate that a significant increase in TBK in patients treated with non-potassium sparing diuretics depends on higher doses of potassium supplements.

Animal studies have shown a significantly larger increase in TBK [27] and in myocardial potassium content in response to an acute intravenous potassium load [28] in potassium depleted animals as compared to normokalemic controls. It should be noted that in these studies TBK also increased in response to an acute potassium load in normokalemic animals.

The present study is the first to demonstrate that TBK can be increased in normokalemic patients who are not treated with non-potassium sparing diuretics by administering lower doses of potassium supplements (average 36 mmol daily), when used in combination with dietary guidance and concomitant inhibition of the renal potassium loss by administration of MRAs. In addition, it is the first study to demonstrate the timing of changes in p-K and TBK.

We observed a numerical increase in p-K of 0.16 mmol/l at the six months follow-up. This is consistent with increases in p-K of 0.16 to 0.30 mmol/l in patients with heart failure treated with MRA and with p-K increases of 0.09–0.19 mmol/l in patients with hypertension treated with potassium supplements [19].

Clinical perspective

This study suggests a build-up of intracellular potassium levels over months that did not reflect changes in extracellular potassium in a simple manner, as the significant increase in p-K over weeks was attenuated after six months. If the level of potassium in the intracellular space affects the risk of malignant cardiac arrythmias, a greater effect of potassium-increasing treatment should be expected after months rather than weeks. This will be tested in the POTCAST trial.

Unanswered questions and future research

The participants in the current study were normokalemic at baseline. Thus, we cannot reasonably infer that raising intracellular potassium takes the same amount of time when deposits are depleted. Potter et al. demonstrated a difference in TBK after only a month of potassium supplementation when added to non-potassium sparing diuretics in elderly patients with heart failure [23]. The present trial does not show if the increased TBK is stable or increase further beyond six months.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

The current study represents the first randomized trial to measure the impact of targeting high-normal extracellular potassium levels on TBK. The study was open labelled, i.e., the patients were not blinded to treatment regimen, or the hypothesis of the main trial. The TBK and p-K measurements were all, however, analyzed by technicians blinded to study group assignments. Due to the low sample size and heterogeneous study population, larger studies with a number of subgroups are needed to confirm the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion

In normokalemic patients dietary guidance combined with potassium supplementation and MRA treatment increased p-K levels within weeks whereas total body potassium increased gradually, and a significant increase was seen six months after commencement of the intervention. The differentially regulated p-K and TBK and the slower increase in TBK reflect the challenge in monitoring the potassium homeostasis and the time it may take until all effects of a potassium-regulating treatment can be anticipated.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary appendix.

(PDF)

S2 File. Consort 2010 checklist.

(PDF)

S3 File. Study protocol.

(PDF)

S4 File. POTCAST study protocol.

(PDF)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of restrictions by Danish legislation (General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR). Data are available from the a non-author data access committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Requests can be send to: Anna Kirstine Ringgaard, MSc, Ph.d Email: anna.kirstine.ringgaard@regionh.dk Doctor Ringgaard is manager/head of a data access committee at Rigshospitalet, Denmark. Her titles include project administrator and research coordinator which she is for several projects at Rigshospitalet and handles legal affairs as well as funding.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by: The Danish Council for Independent Research Grant recipient: CJ Grant Number: 8020-00399B Url: https://dff.dk/en The Hartmann Foundation Grant recipient: HB Grant Number: 2019 Url: https://www.hartmannfonden.dk/english/ The Danish Heart Foundation Grant recipient: HB Grant Number: 2019 Url: https://hjerteforeningen.dk/ Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond Grant recipient: HB Grant Number: 2019 Url: https://sophusjacobsenfond.dk/ The Novo Nordisk Foundation Grant recipient: NR Grant Number: NNF20OC0064048 Url: https://novonordiskfonden.dk/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Munk JK, Hansen MF, Buhl H, Lind BS, Bathum L, Jørgensen HL. The 10 most frequently requested blood tests in the Capital Region of Denmark, 2010–2019 and simulated effect of minimal retesting intervals. Clin Biochem. 2022;100: 55–59. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2021.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Weiss JN, Qu Z, Shivkumar K. Electrophysiology of Hypokalemia and Hyperkalemia. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2017;10. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.116.004667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kovesdy CP, Matsushita K, Sang Y, Brunskill NJ, Carrero JJ, Chodick G, et al. Serum potassium and adverse outcomes across the range of kidney function: a CKD Prognosis Consortium meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2018;39: 1535–1542. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bowling CB, Pitt B, Ahmed MI, Aban IB, Sanders PW, Mujib M, et al. Hypokalemia and Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease. Circ Hear Fail. 2010;3: 253–260. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.109.899526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tazmini K, Frisk M, Lewalle A, Laasmaa M, Morotti S, Lipsett DB, et al. Hypokalemia Promotes Arrhythmia by Distinct Mechanisms in Atrial and Ventricular Myocytes. Circ Res. 2020;126: 889–906. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.119.315641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Alexandre J, Dolladille C, Douesnel L, Font J, Dabrowski R, Shavit L, et al. Effects of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists on Atrial Fibrillation Occurrence: A Systematic Review, Meta‐Analysis, and Meta‐Regression to Identify Modifying Factors. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Macdonald JE, Struthers AD. What is the optimal serum potassium level in cardiovascular patients? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43: 155–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Neal B, Wu Y, Feng X, Zhang R, Zhang Y, Shi J, et al. Effect of Salt Substitution on Cardiovascular Events and Death. N Engl J Med. 2021;385: 1067–1077. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2105675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.O’Donnell M, Mente A, Rangarajan S, McQueen MJ, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Events. N Engl J Med. 2014;371: 612–623. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rossello X, Ariti C, Pocock SJ, Ferreira JP, Girerd N, McMurray JJ V., et al. Impact of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction: an individual patient-level meta-analysis of three randomized-controlled trials. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;108: 477–486. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1378-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Siscovick DS, Raghunathan TE, Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Wicklund KG, Lin X, et al. Diuretic Therapy for Hypertension and the Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 1994;330: 1852–1857. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199406303302603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cooper HA, Dries DL, Davis CE, Shen YL, Domanski MJ. Diuretics and Risk of Arrhythmic Death in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction. Circulation. 1999;100: 1311–1315. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.100.12.1311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krogager ML, Torp-Pedersen C, Mortensen RN, Køber L, Gislason G, Søgaard P, et al. Short-term mortality risk of serum potassium levels in hypertension: a retrospective analysis of nationwide registry data. Eur Heart J. 2016; ehw129. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hoss Sarah, Elizur Yair, Luria David, Keren Andre, Chaim Lotan IG. Serum Potassium Levels and Outcome in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118: 1868–1874. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.João Pedro Ferreira Javed Butler, Rossignol Patrick, Pitt Bertram, Stefan D Anker Mikhail Kosiborod, et al. Abnormalities of Potassium in Heart Failure: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75: 2836–2850. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bia MJ, DeFronzo RA. Extrarenal potassium homeostasis. Am J Physiol. 1981;240: F257–68. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1981.240.4.F257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.ZIERLER KL, RABINOWITZ D. EFFECT OF VERY SMALL CONCENTRATIONS OF INSULIN ON FOREARM METABOLISM. PERSISTENCE OF ITS ACTION ON POTASSIUM AND FREE FATTY ACIDS WITHOUT ITS EFFECT ON GLUCOSE. J Clin Invest. 1964;43: 950–62. doi: 10.1172/JCI104981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Silva P, Spokes K. Sympathetic system in potassium homeostasis. Am J Physiol. 1981;241: F151–5. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1981.241.2.F151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Winsløw U, Sakthivel T, Zheng C, Bosselmann H, Haugan K, Bruun N, et al. Targeted potassium levels to decrease arrhythmia burden in high risk patients with cardiovascular diseases (POTCAST): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J. 2022;253: 59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2022.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lan CY, Weng PS. Body K and 40K in Chinese subjects measured with a whole-body counter. Health Phys. 1989;57: 743–6. doi: 10.1097/00004032-198911000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sievert R. Measurements of the gamma-radiation from the human body. Ark Fys. 1951;3. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.BURCH PR, SPIERS FW. Measurement of the gamma-radiation from the human body. Nature. 1953;172: 519–21. doi: 10.1038/172519a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.POTTER JM, BLAKE GM, COX JR. POTASSIUM SUPPLEMENTS AND TOTAL BODY POTASSIUM IN ELDERLY PATIENTS. Age Ageing. 1984;13: 238–242. doi: 10.1093/ageing/13.4.238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Naversten Y, Lenger V. Total Body Potassium Determination Using a Whole-Body Counter. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1983;22: 167–175. doi: 10.3109/02841868309134357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dargie HJ, Boddy K, Kennedy AC, King PC, Read PR, Ward DM. Total Body Potassium in Long-Term Frusemide Therapy: Is Potassium Supplementation Necessary? BMJ. 1974;4: 316–319. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5940.316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.MACLENNAN WJ, LYE MDW, MAY T . THE EFFECT OF POTASSIUM SUPPLEMENTS ON TOTAL-BODY-POTASSIUM LEVELS IN THE ELDERLY. Age Ageing. 1977;6: 46–50. doi: 10.1093/ageing/6.1.46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bundgaard H, Kjeldsen K. Potassium depletion increases potassium clearance capacity in skeletal muscles in vivo during acute repletion. Am J Physiol Physiol. 2002;283: C1163–C1170. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00588.2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bundgaard H. Potassium depletion improves myocardial potassium uptake in vivo. Am J Physiol Physiol. 2004;287: C135–C141. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00580.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

6 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-02299Treatment-induced increase in total body potassium in patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias; a randomized POTCAST substudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winsløw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: 

"This study was supported by The Danish Council for Independent Research, The Hartmann Foundation, The Danish Heart Foundation, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The funders had no involvement in planning the study design, execution, analysis or interpretation of data.  "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This study was supported by:

The Danish Council for Independent Research

Grant recipient: CJ

Grant Number: 8020-00399B

Url: https://dff.dk/en

The Hartmann Foundation

Grant recipient: HB

Grant Number: 2019

Url: https://www.hartmannfonden.dk/english/

The Danish Heart Foundation

Grant recipient: HB

Grant Number: 2019

Url: https://hjerteforeningen.dk/

Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond

Grant recipient: HB

Grant Number: 2019

Url: https://sophusjacobsenfond.dk/

The Novo Nordisk Foundation

Grant recipient: NR

Grant Number: NNF20OC0064048

Url: https://novonordiskfonden.dk/

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"NO authors have competing interests"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses a potentially interesting topic. The study is single-center and this may limit its usefulness. Similarly, the methods are rather basic and not fully discussed. Some comments follow.

1. Please, upload the code used to get the results. This ensures the reproducibility of the results and allows the reviewer to check for the correctness of the results.

2. The sample size is rather small. This may strongly affect statistical inference. Even though basic tests are employed, no matter which parametric approach is considered, the assumptions underlying the statistical methods must be carefully checked and discussed.

3. I appreciate the use of mixed effects modelling as the data have a clear longitudinal structure. Nevertheless, the results are not well discussed. Firstly, it is rather unclear what the outcome is. The paper discusses mean differences at multiple times, and the regression modelling is swept under the carpet. Again, model's assumptions must be checked, investigated and discussed. A residual analysis must be provided and results must be shown to support your statements. Moreover, I am wondering how the Gaussian assumption for the random effects is tenable for such a small sample. Overall, it is rather unclear if confounders are considered or not, and the empircal specification of the linear predictor is not discussed.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study considering that serum potassium level is significantly associated with the cardiovascular event risk. Another important point suggested from the study is that p-K level and TBK are rather differently regulated and do not behave parallelly in the living body homeostasis.

However, the reviewer has concerns as below.

#1. Only value differences were plotted in Figure 2. The measurement values should definitely be separately presented in each group with statistical standard deviations.

#2.The authors’ idea about the sample size calculation is questionable. The reviewer agree with the idea that the study was powered to detect an increase in TBK of 5%. However, as shown in Supplemental Figure 2, the mean difference between measurements in the same sample was 0.024 g/kg body weight, which may up-to 1.6% of the absolute value. Considering the measurement error, the reviewer can not believe that the sample size calculation is sufficient to interpret the results. The sample size calculation should definitely be revised. I guess more number of samples should be included to lead a conclusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 19;18(7):e0288756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288756.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Jun 2023

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses a potentially interesting topic. The study is single-center and this may limit its usefulness. Similarly, the methods are rather basic and not fully discussed. Some comments follow.

1. Please, upload the code used to get the results. This ensures the reproducibility of the results and allows the reviewer to check for the correctness of the results.

Response: Certainly. The code for main results is presented below.

Using the Statistics software R version 4.1.0 and the open-source package lme4:

#loading package for mixed linear regression analysis

library(lme4) # "golden standard" for mixed-effects modelling in R

#Creating a dataframe with long format data required for mixed regression analysis.

glm_tbk<-c(tbk_baseline,tbk_6weeks, tbk_6months)

glm_pk<-c(pk_baseline, pk_6weeks,pk_6months)

glm_fu<-gl(3,14)

glm_fu<-as.numeric(glm_fu)

glm_pt_nr<-c(1:14,1:14,1:14)

glm_group<-c(group, group, group)

glm_group<-as.factor(glm_group)

glm_koen<-c(koen, koen, koen)

glm.data<-data.frame(glm_tbk, glm_pk, glm_fu, glm_pt_nr, glm_group)

#changing the unit of glm_tbk from g/kg to mg/kg

glm.data$glm_tbk<-glm.data$glm_tbk*1000

#changing class of glm_fu and glm_group to factor

glm.data$glm_fu<-as.factor(glm.data$glm_fu)

glm.data$glm_group<-as.factor(glm.data$glm_group)

#linear mixed regressio nmodel with patient ID (glm_pt_nr) as random effect.

lmer<-lmer(glm_tbk~glm_fu*glm_group+(1|glm_pt_nr), data=glm.data3, REML=F)

#visual inspection of residual normality

qqnorm(resid(lmer))

qqline(resid(lmer))

#formal statistical test for residual normality

shapiro.test(resid(lmer))

#extracting model results

summary(lmer)

confint(lmer)

coef(lmer)

#linear mixed regression model of p-K with patient ID (glm_pt_nr) as random effect.

lmer2<-lmer(glm_pk~glm_fu*glm_group+glm_group+(1|glm_pt_nr), data=glm.data3, REML=F)

#visual inspection of residual normality

qqnorm(resid(lmer2))

qqline(resid(lmer2))

#formal statistical test for residual normality

shapiro.test(resid(lmer2))

#extracting model results

summary(lmer2)

confint(lmer2)

coef(lmer2)

2. The sample size is rather small. This may strongly affect statistical inference. Even though basic tests are employed, no matter which parametric approach is considered, the assumptions underlying the statistical methods must be carefully checked and discussed.

3. I appreciate the use of mixed effects modelling as the data have a clear longitudinal structure. Nevertheless, the results are not well discussed. Firstly, it is rather unclear what the outcome is. The paper discusses mean differences at multiple times, and the regression modelling is swept under the carpet. Again, model's assumptions must be checked, investigated and discussed. A residual analysis must be provided and results must be shown to support your statements. Moreover, I am wondering how the Gaussian assumption for the random effects is tenable for such a small sample. Overall, it is rather unclear if confounders are considered or not, and the empirical specification of the linear predictor is not discussed.

Response: Thank you for these two important comments on sample size and statistical modelling. We agree that checking the assumptions behind any statistical test is of vital importance. The underlying test for the main results in the present paper is the linear mixed random effects regression model and the assumptions was tested during data analysis. The code is shown in comment 1. We have included a residual analysis in the manuscript:

Page 7, line 167: The assumption of normal distribution of model residuals was tested by Shapiro-Wilk test. For changes in p-K the W statistic was 0.97, P=0.39 and for TBK the W statistic was 0.96, P=0.11.

The outcome was predefined as between-group difference in changes in p-K and TBK from baseline to six weeks and from baseline to six months. This has been made clearer on page 6 line 134: Main outcome measures: Between-group difference in changes in TBK and p-K from baseline to six weeks, and from baseline to six months.

As for confounding factors and generalizability, the study is a randomized trial and such trial of its kind. However, we do agree that the relatively low sample size, the between-study heterogeneity, may affect the generalizability of the results. This has now been addressed in the limitations section on page 14 line 276:

Changes made to the manuscript:

Due to the low sample size and heterogeneous study population, larger studies with a number of subgroups are needed to confirm the generalizability of the findings.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study considering that serum potassium level is significantly associated with the cardiovascular event risk. Another important point suggested from the study is that p-K level and TBK are rather differently regulated and do not behave parallelly in the living body homeostasis.

However, the reviewer has concerns as below.

#1. Only value differences were plotted in Figure 2. The measurement values should definitely be separately presented in each group with statistical standard deviations.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We chose to keep the study simple by only presenting differences in outcome between the two groups in the main paper. We realize that some readers may be interested to know the changes in each group separately along with standard deviations and this data has been added to a table in the supplementary appendix (Supplementary table 1). We have added a sentence to the manuscript in order to refer readers to the table on page 11 line 207.

Changes made to the manuscript:

The mean TBK and p-K in each study group at baseline, six weeks, and six months are shown in S1 Table.

#2.The authors’ idea about the sample size calculation is questionable. The reviewer agree with the idea that the study was powered to detect an increase in TBK of 5%. However, as shown in Supplemental Figure 2, the mean difference between measurements in the same sample was 0.024 g/kg body weight, which may up-to 1.6% of the absolute value. Considering the measurement error, the reviewer can not believe that the sample size calculation is sufficient to interpret the results. The sample size calculation should definitely be revised. I guess more number of samples should be included to lead a conclusion.

Response: Thank you for this comment. The sample size calculation was performed prior to the initiation of the study and thus, naturally holds estimations of the study outcome. As no prior trial has been made on the same study population some assumptions had to be made. Thus, we assumed that …… and standard deviations for the sample size calculation were achieved from ….

We all prefer large studies – but we also have to acknowledge the ethics - that it is considered un-ethical to expose more patients to trial examinations than what has been shown to be necessary to reach a conclusion in the specific study. The observed changes came quite close to the estimated changes. TBK increased slightly more than estimated (0.083 g/kg) while the standard deviation of the paired differences was 0.05. A future study with a sample size calculation based on these numbers would need 6 patients in each group.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

27 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-02299R1Treatment-induced increase in total body potassium in patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias; a randomized POTCAST substudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winsløw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This academic editor considers that the authors well performed the present study, and that they well responded to the reviewers’ comments. This editor has an additional comment as described below.

Major comment:

1. The authors should add why they performed this study in this sample size in the “Ethics”, as responded in comment #2 of Reviewer #2 (that it is considered un-ethical to expose more patients to trial examinations than what has been shown to be necessary to reach a conclusion in the specific study).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Many of the reviewers' comments and requests have not been addressed. The revision made by the authors is not sufficient to overcome the fundamental problems of the study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 19;18(7):e0288756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288756.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Jun 2023

In this revision we have responded to the editor's advice to add a comment on the ethics behind the chosen sample size. We have added the following to the manuscript's ethics section (page 7 line 160):

“The limited size of the study was solely based on the sample size calculation as it is, due to ethical considerations, recommended to avoid exposing more patients to trial examinations than what has been shown to be necessary to reach a conclusion.“

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

5 Jul 2023

Treatment-induced increase in total body potassium in patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias; a randomized POTCAST substudy

PONE-D-23-02299R2

Dear Dr. Winsløw,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yoshihiro Fukumoto

10 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-02299R2

Treatment-induced increase in total body potassium in patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias; a randomized POTCAST substudy

Dear Dr. Winsløw:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yoshihiro Fukumoto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supplementary appendix.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Consort 2010 checklist.

    (PDF)

    S3 File. Study protocol.

    (PDF)

    S4 File. POTCAST study protocol.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of restrictions by Danish legislation (General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR). Data are available from the a non-author data access committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Requests can be send to: Anna Kirstine Ringgaard, MSc, Ph.d Email: anna.kirstine.ringgaard@regionh.dk Doctor Ringgaard is manager/head of a data access committee at Rigshospitalet, Denmark. Her titles include project administrator and research coordinator which she is for several projects at Rigshospitalet and handles legal affairs as well as funding.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES