Chronic constipation is a common and extremely troublesome disorder that significantly reduces the quality of life, and this fact is consistent with the high rate at which health care is sought for this condition. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. The commission presents its results in a "Question-Answer" format, including a set of graded recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based medicine. This section represents the consensus for the diagnosis. The history includes information relating to the onset and duration of symptoms and may reveal secondary causes of constipation. The presence of alarm symptoms and risk factors requires investigation. The physical examination should assess the presence of lesions in the anal and perianal region. The evidence does not support the routine use of blood testing and colonoscopy or barium enema for constipation. Various scoring systems are available to quantify the severity of constipation; the Constipation Severity Instrument for constipation and the obstructed defecation syndrome score for obstructed defecation are the most reliable. The Constipation-Related Quality of Life is an excellent tool for evaluating the patient's quality of life. No single test provides a pathophysiological basis for constipation. Colonic transit and anorectal manometry define the pathophysiologic subtypes. Balloon expulsion is a simple screening test for defecatory disorders, but it does not define the mechanisms. Defecography detects structural abnormalities and assesses functional parameters. Magnetic resonance imaging and/or pelvic floor sonography can further complement defecography by providing information on the movement of the pelvic floor and the organs that it supports. All these investigations are indicated to differentiate between slow transit constipation and obstructed defecation because the treatments differ between these conditions.
BackgroundAccording to Rome criteria, chronic constipation (CC) includes functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Some patients do not meet these criteria (No Rome Constipation, NRC). The aim of the study was is to evaluate the various clinical presentation and management of FC, IBS-C and NRC in Italy.MethodsDuring a 2-month period, 52 Italian gastroenterologists recorded clinical data of FC, IBS-C and NRC patients, using Bristol scale, PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL questionnaires. In addition, gastroenterologists were also asked to record whether the patients were clinically assessed for CC for the first time or were in follow up. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies were also recorded.ResultsEight hundred seventy-eight consecutive CC patients (706 F) were enrolled (FC 62.5%, IBS-C 31.3%, NRC 6.2%). PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL scores were higher in IBS-C than in FC and NRC. 49.5% were at their first gastroenterological evaluation for CC. In 48.5% CC duration was longer than 10 years. A specialist consultation was requested in 31.6%, more frequently in IBS-C than in NRC. Digital rectal examination was performed in only 56.4%. Diagnostic tests were prescribed to 80.0%. Faecal calprotectin, thyroid tests, celiac serology, breath tests were more frequently suggested in IBS-C and anorectal manometry in FC. More than 90% had at least one treatment suggested on chronic constipation, most frequently dietary changes, macrogol and fibers. Antispasmodics and psychotherapy were more frequently prescribed in IBS-C, prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation in FC.ConclusionsPatients with IBS-C reported more severe symptoms and worse quality of life than FC and NRC. Digital rectal examination was often not performed but at least one diagnostic test was prescribed to most patients. Colonoscopy and blood tests were the “first line” diagnostic tools. Macrogol was the most prescribed laxative, and prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation represented a “second line” approach. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies increased by increasing CC severity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-016-0556-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Pelvic floor rehabilitation is frequently recommended for defecation disorders, in both constipation and fecal incontinence. However, the lack of patient selection, together with the variety of rehabilitation methods and protocols, often jeopardize the results of this approach, causing difficulty in evaluating outcomes and addressing proper management, and above all, in obtaining scientific evidence for the efficacy of these methods for specific indications. The authors represent different gastroenterological and surgical scientific societies in Italy, and their aim was to identify the indications and agree on treatment protocols for pelvic floor rehabilitation of patients with defecation disorders. This was achieved by means of a modified Delphi method, utilizing a working team (10 members) which developed the statements and a consensus group (15 members, different from the previous ones) which voted twice also suggesting modifications of the statements.
Acid-suppressive therapy (AST) is largely prescribed in both hospital and general practice setting but few data are available on appropriateness of AST use in hospitalized patients and its fallout on prescribing in general practice. We assessed AST in patients consecutively admitted to an internal medicine department to determine the type and timing of prescription and indication for use according to widely accepted guidelines. Prescriptions were rated as indicated, acceptable, or not indicated. Overall, 58.7% of 834 admitted patients received AST, mainly proton pump inhibitors. The prescriptions were indicated in 50.1% of patients, not indicated in 41.5%, and acceptable in 6.5%. The main reason for inappropriate use was prophylaxis in low-risk patients (64.8%). On admission, 35.7% of 112 patients already on AST were judged to receive inappropriate prescription; of 348 patients discharged on AST, overuse was identified in 38.5%. No significant difference was observed for inappropriate use at admission, during hospitalization, and at discharge. In 64 inpatients (7.7%) AST, although indicated, mainly for ulcer prophylaxis in high-risk patients, was not prescribed. In conclusion, AST is substantially over-used in both hospital and general practice settings, mainly for ulcer prophylaxis in low-risk patients. On the other hand, AST is underused in a small, but not negligible proportion of high-risk patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.