Constipation during pregnancy: a longitudinal survey based on self-reported symptoms and the Rome II criteria

Prevalence and severity of bowel disorders in the third trimester of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Bowel-related disorders are common conditions associated with pregnancy and are a cause of significant distress and healthcare burden. However, there is a lack of data in the literature about these disorders.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate bowel dysfunctions during the third trimester of pregnancy in a large cohort of women using the validated bowel domain of the Italian version of the Pelvic Floor Questionnaire for Pregnant and Postpartum Women.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in hospitals in Italy and Italian-speaking Switzerland. Women in the third trimester of pregnancy were asked to complete the Italian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire for Pregnant and Postpartum Women.

RESULTS

During the study period, 927 pregnant women in the third trimester of pregnancy responded to the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Overall bowel dysfunctions were reported by 29.6% of patients. Constipation was reported by 66.6% of pregnant women, whereas symptoms of obstructed defecation were reported by 49.9% of patients. In contrast, urgency was reported by 41.1% of patients. Incontinence to flatus and incontinence to stool were reported by 45.1% and 2.8% of patients, respectively. Moreover, age >35 years, familiarity with pelvic floor disorders, nicotine abuse, and pelvic floor contraction inability were identified as independent risk factors for at least 1 bowel symptom.

CONCLUSION

Bowel symptoms are extremely common in the third trimester of pregnancy and can greatly affect a patient's quality of life; therefore, bowel symptoms deserve to be investigated and managed properly. The use of validated questionnaires represents a precious tool to investigate functional symptoms that could be very frequent and disabling in this particular period of life for women.

A Systematic Review of the Development and Psychometric Properties of Constipation-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Opportunities for Digital Health

Background/Aims

Constipation can be a chronic condition that impacts daily functioning and quality of life (QoL). To aid healthcare providers in accurately assessing patient symptoms and treatment outcomes, patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) have been increasingly adopted in clinical settings. This review aims to (1) evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of constipation-related PROMs, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INtruments (COSMIN) criteria; and (2) assess the modes of digital dissemination of constipation-related PROMs.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched and 11 011 records ranging from 1989 to 2020 were screened by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 26 studies (23 PROMs; 18 measuring symptom-related items and 5 measuring constipation-related QoL items) were identified for the review and assessed.

Results

There were multiple variations between PROMs, including subtypes of constipation, methods of administration, length of PROM and recall period. While no PROM met all the COSMIN quality standards for development and measurement properties, 5 constipation-related PROMs received at least 4 (out of 7) sufficient ratings. Only 2 PROMs were developed in Asia. Five PROMs were administered through digital methods during the validation process but methods of adapting the PROMs into digital formats were not reported.

Conclusions

The constipation-related PROMs identified in this review present varying quality of development and validation, with an overall need for improvement. Further considerations should be given towards more consistent methodology and reporting of PROM development, increase in culturally-specific PROMs, and better reporting of protocol for the digitisation of PROMs.

[Knowledge of pelvic floor disorders in peripartum women: A systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy and postpartum are periods of life during which pelvic floor disorders (PFD) can occur.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to make an inventory of what women in the perinatal period know about PFD, their risk factors and preventive measures.

DOCUMENTARY SOURCES

We performed a systematic review of the literature in PubMed, Cochrane Library, LISSA and Kinédoc databases by using the keywords "knowledge", "awareness", "beliefs", "pelvic floor", "postpartum" and "pregnancy". We included studies written in English or French, assessing women's knowledge using a questionnaire and published up to May 2020 with no restriction on start date.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

A total of 14 cross-sectional studies were selected from 240 studies, with a sample size of 3950 participants.

RESULTS

The topics covered in the questionnaires were anatomy, pelvic floor function, all PFD, risk factors and preventive measures. Overall, women's knowledge of the perinatal period is limited. It has also been shown that education of women on risk factors and preventive measures regarding the occurrence of PFD was incomplete.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the knowledge of women in the perinatal period about PFD is limited.

Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal constipation - an observational hybrid survey on pregnant and postpartum women and their age-matched non-pregnant controls

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of constipation during pregnancy and early puerperium.

DESIGN

Observational survey.

SETTING

Secondary and tertiary hospital in Finland.

POPULATION

Pregnant (n = 474) and postpartum (n = 403) women and a control group of 200 non-pregnant women who did not give birth in the past year.

METHODS

Women reported bowel function and other gastrointestinal symptoms on a structured questionnaire using an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 = no symptom, 10 = most severe symptom) and binominal yes/no questions during the second and third trimesters and few days and 1 month after childbirth.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Prevalence of constipation based on the Rome IV criteria.

RESULTS

The data consist of five cohorts of women: second trimester (n = 264), third trimester (n = 210), after vaginal delivery (n = 200) or caesarean section (n = 203), and a control group (n = 200). The prevalence of constipation was 40% in pregnant women and 52% (P < 0.001) in postpartum women, which was a higher prevalence than that in the control group, where 21% had constipation (P < 0.001). A few days after delivery, the prevalence of constipation was lower after vaginal delivery (47%) than caesarean section (57%, P < 0.039). One month postpartum, the prevalence of constipation was low: 9% after vaginal delivery (P = 0.002 compared with the control group) and 15% after caesarean section. Other gastrointestinal symptoms were common; pregnant women had the highest prevalence (34%) of nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of constipation was two- to three-fold higher in pregnant women and a few days after delivery than in non-pregnant women. During puerperium, bowel function returned to or below that reported in non-pregnant women.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Constipation is common in pregnancy and after delivery, but bowel function returns early in puerperium.

Effect of predictive nursing care in preventing constipation in pregnant women on expectant management

AIM

To evaluate the effect of predictive nursing care in the prevention of constipation in pregnant women with constipation.

METHODS

Eighty patients on expectant management were chosen from January 2015 to August 2016 and randomly divided into a control group (n = 40) and an intervention group (n = 40) according to admission time. Both groups were given conventional nursing care, and the intervention group was additionally given predictive nursing care based on the risk factors for constipation reported in the literature. Time to first postoperative exhaust, time to first defecation, constipation rate and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After intervention, time to first postoperative exhaust (13.57 h ± 3.46 h vs 21.42 h ± 8.57 h, P < 0.05), time to first defecation (21.45 h ± 5.43 h vs 30.37 h ± 7.64 h, P < 0.05), constipation rate (15.0% vs 35.0%, P < 0.05), and patient satisfaction (92.5% vs 75.0%) were significantly improved in the intervention group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

For pregnant women on expectant management, predictive nursing care can prevent constipation and increase patient satisfaction.

Impact of preoperative defecation pattern on postoperative constipation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To analyse the impact of preoperative defecation pattern on postoperative defecation pattern for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a neglected problem that occurs frequently after cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

METHOD

The study sample comprised 102 patients who underwent cardiac surgery. A Descriptive Information Form, Rome III Diagnostic Criteria, Constipation Severity Instrument, Postoperative Defecation Pattern Evaluation Form and Bristol Stool Form Scale were used for data collection and analysis.

RESULTS

The Constipation Severity Instrument scores of just over one-third (37·2%) of the patients who were constipated prior to surgery were higher compared to those who were not constipated. Following cardiac surgery, 39·2% of patients developed constipation and 80% of these patients were constipated prior to cardiac surgery. The findings indicate a significantly high relationship between preoperative and postoperative defecation pattern (r = 0·71, p < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative defecation pattern is a determining factor for the development of postoperative constipation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

During the preoperative period, clinical nurses may evaluate the patients' defecation patterns using valid and reliable scales and follow the defecation of the patients, especially patients with defecation problems, during the postoperative period.

Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation

BACKGROUND

Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency .

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: pain or straining on defecation; incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention such as: nausea or vomiting, pain and flatus.

Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.

Interventions for treating postpartum constipation

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a functional bowel disorder that can reduce quality of life in the puerperium period. The diagnosis of postpartum constipation is both subjective and objective. It is characterised by symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, hard lumpy stools and a sense of incomplete bowel evacuation. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and hematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Although a high fibre diet and increased fluid intake is encouraged to assist defecation in the puerperium, pain-relieving drugs and laxatives are common drugs of choice to alleviate constipation. However, the effectiveness and safety of laxatives on the nursing mother need to be ascertained.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for treating postpartum constipation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), the ProQuest database, Stellenbosch University database and Google Scholar (28 March 2014). We also searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies identified by the search, reviewed articles for relevant trials and contacted experts to identify any additional published or unpublished trials (10 April 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of postpartum constipation to another intervention, placebo or no intervention.Interventions could include laxatives, surgery, as well as educational and behavioural interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies using pre-designed eligibility inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We did not identify any studies for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded nine studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could not make explicit conclusions on interventions for treating postpartum constipation because we found no studies for inclusion in this review. Rigorous and well-conducted large randomised controlled trials aimed at treating postpartum women diagnosed with constipation would be beneficial. These trials should also address the criteria for administering the intervention (time and stage of a diagnosis of postpartum constipation), and the safety and effectiveness of such interventions.

Risk factors for constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: an analysis of 100 cases

AIM: To investigate the risk factors for constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (C-IBS) to guide treatment and prevention of the disease.

METHODS: This was a 1:1 case-control study. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 100 patients who were diagnosed with C-IBS and 100 healthy volunteers from November 2010 to January 2011. The questionnaire requested general information and information on life style and psychological factors (depression). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS17.0 software.

RESULTS: A family history of constipation (RR = 6.493), regular defecation (RR = 0.120) and depression (RR = 2.195) were independently associated with the incidence of C-IBS (all P < 0.05). A family history of constipation and depression were risk factors for C-IBS, whereas regular defecation was a protective factor.

CONCLUSION: Lifestyle and mental status can affect the incidence of C-IBS. Improvement of lifestyle and mental intervention can prevent and relieve C-IBS.

Anorectal symptoms during pregnancy: how important is trimester?

PURPOSE

The frequency of anorectal symptoms amongst pregnant women has not been objectively investigated in the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of anorectal symptoms during each trimester of pregnancy.

METHODS

Women attending the antenatal clinics at a London teaching hospital were asked to complete a questionnaire. The presence or absence of common anorectal symptoms experienced both before and during the current pregnancy together with demographic and pregnancy data was collected. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventeen patients (first trimester n=75, second trimester n=70 and third trimester n=72) participated. A significant increase in the frequency of symptoms was observed in the third (43.1%) compared to the first (16.0%, p<0.001) and second (22.9%, p=0.013) trimesters. The incidence of per rectal bleeding was significantly greater in the third trimester (30.6%) compared to the first (10.6%, p=0.004) and the second (12.9%, p=0.014) trimesters. Similarly, anal pain was significantly more frequent in the third trimester (34.7%) compared to the first (13.3%, p=0.003) and the second (12.9%, p=0.003) trimesters.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of anorectal symptom reporting appears to increase as pregnancy progresses. Further investigation and research is warranted to determine the configuration of services that may be required to treat those affected.

New-onset constipation at acute stage after first stroke: incidence, risk factors, and impact on the stroke outcome

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The prevalence of constipation after stroke varies from 30% to 60%. The incidence of new-onset constipation during the early stage of stroke remains uncertain. The present study was designed to investigate the prevalence of new-onset constipation, its risk factors, and its impact on stroke outcome in patients with their first stroke at acute stage.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of 154 patients admitted with their first stroke. New-onset constipation during the first 4 weeks of stroke was recorded, using the Rome II criteria for constipation. Demographics, characteristics of the stroke, laboratory parameters, and use of medications were evaluated as risk factors for constipation. Death, recurrent stroke, and handicap at 12 weeks were regarded as poor outcome. The impact of constipation on poor outcome was also studied.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of new-onset constipation was 55.2% at 4 weeks poststroke. The occurrence of constipation was associated with dependence (P<0.01) and use of bedpan for defecation (P<0.05). Among patients with moderate stroke severity (NIHSS 4 to 11) at baseline, constipation at 4 weeks was associated with a poor outcome at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

New-onset constipation is a common complication of acute stroke. Its occurrence is associated with dependence and use of bedpan for defecation. Its development may predict a poor outcome at 12 weeks in patients with moderately severe stroke.