Abdominal Symptoms Are Common and Benefit from Biofeedback Therapy in Patients with Dyssynergic Defecation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baker J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4816253 | biostudies-other | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAlthough biofeedback therapy is effective in the short-term management of dyssynergic defecation, its long-term efficacy is unknown. Our aim was to compare the 1-year outcome of biofeedback (manometric-assisted pelvic relaxation and simulated defecation training) with standard therapy (diet, exercise, laxatives) in patients who completed 3 months of either therapy.MethodsStool diaries, visual analog scales (VASs), colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion time were assessed at baseline, and at 1 year after each treatment. All subjects were seen at 3-month intervals and received reinforcement. Primary outcome measure (intention-to-treat analysis) was a change in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week. Secondary outcome measures included bowel symptoms, changes in dyssynergia, and anorectal function.ResultsOf 44 eligible patients with dyssynergic defecation, 26 agreed to participate in the long-term study. All 13 subjects who received biofeedback, and 7 of 13 who received standard therapy, completed 1 year; 6 failed standard therapy. The number of CSBMs per week increased significantly (P<0.001) in the biofeedback group but not in the standard group. Dyssynergia pattern normalized (P<0.001), balloon expulsion time improved (P=0.0009), defecation index increased (P<0.001), and colonic transit time normalized (P=0.01) only in the biofeedback group.ConclusionsBiofeedback therapy provided sustained improvement of bowel symptoms and anorectal function in constipated subjects with dyssynergic defecation, whereas standard therapy was largely ineffective.
| S-EPMC3910270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Office-based biofeedback therapy is effective for constipation with dyssynergic defecation, but must be performed by skilled staff, is only available in selected centres, and requires multiple visits. The efficacy of home-based biofeedback therapy is unknown. We compared clinical and subjective outcomes with home-based and office-based approaches. METHODS:In this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were adult outpatients (age 18-80 years) who met the Rome III criteria for functional constipation and who had been referred to a tertiary-care centre after non-response to routine management, and who had dyssynergic defecation. Patients were randomly assigned according to a schedule generated in advance by the study biostatistician, in permuted blocks of four, to receive office-based or home-based biofeedback therapy. Office-based biofeedback comprised therapist-guided pelvic floor training for six sessions over 3 months (visits every 2 weeks). Home-based biofeedback comprised 20 min self-training sessions twice per day, in which a self-inserted probe was used to provide visual feedback via a handheld monitoring device of anal sphincter pressure and push effort. Patients recorded in diaries the time of each defecation attempt, stool consistency, straining effort, feeling of incomplete evacuation, need for digital assistance with stooling, and satisfaction with bowel function, from 1 week before enrolment to the end of follow-up. Treatment responders were defined post hoc as those with normalisation of dyssynergic defecation and an increase in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week by 3 months. Cost outcomes calculated from health-care costs and loss of salary were assessed from hospital billing and medical records and questionnaires. Primary outcome measures were the presence of a dyssynergic pattern during attempted defecation, balloon expulsion time, the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, and satisfaction with bowel function, assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03202771. FINDINGS:Of 300 patients screened we enrolled 100, from Jan 7, 2005, to Jan 31, 2010. 83 patients completed training (38 [76%] of 50 in the home-based biofeedback group and 45 [90%] of 50 in the office-based biofeedback group). 34 (68%) patients in the home-based group and 35 (70%) in the office-based group were classified as responders. All primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline in the two treatment groups (all p<0·0001). Home-based biofeedback therapy was non-inferior to office-based therapy for number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, satisfaction with bowel function, and balloon expulsion time in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and for dyssynergia in the per-protocol analysis. No adverse events were reported. The median cost of home-based biofeedback therapy was significantly lower than that for office-based treatment (US$1081·70, IQR 794·90-1399·30 vs $1942·50, 1621·70-2369·00, p=0·009). INTERPRETATION:Home-based and office-based biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation improved bowel symptoms and physiology with similar efficacy. A home-based programme could substantially broaden the availability and use of this treatment. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC6206847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOffice-based biofeedback therapy is effective for constipation with dyssynergic defecation, but must be performed by skilled staff, is only available in selected centres, and requires multiple visits. The efficacy of home-based biofeedback therapy is unknown. We compared clinical and subjective outcomes with home-based and office-based approaches.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were adult outpatients (age 18-80 years) who met the Rome III criteria for functional constipation and who had been referred to a tertiary-care centre after non-response to routine management, and who had dyssynergic defecation. Patients were randomly assigned according to a schedule generated in advance by the study biostatistician, in permuted blocks of four, to receive office-based or home-based biofeedback therapy. Office-based biofeedback comprised therapist-guided pelvic floor training for six sessions over 3 months (visits every 2 weeks). Home-based biofeedback comprised 20 min self-training sessions twice per day, in which a self-inserted probe was used to provide visual feedback via a handheld monitoring device of anal sphincter pressure and push effort. Patients recorded in diaries the time of each defecation attempt, stool consistency, straining effort, feeling of incomplete evacuation, need for digital assistance with stooling, and satisfaction with bowel function, from 1 week before enrolment to the end of follow-up. Treatment responders were defined post hoc as those with normalisation of dyssynergic defecation and an increase in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week by 3 months. Cost outcomes calculated from health-care costs and loss of salary were assessed from hospital billing and medical records and questionnaires. Primary outcome measures were the presence of a dyssynergic pattern during attempted defecation, balloon expulsion time, the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, and satisfaction with bowel function, assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03202771.FindingsOf 300 patients screened we enrolled 100, from Jan 7, 2005, to Jan 31, 2010. 83 patients completed training (38 [76%] of 50 in the home-based biofeedback group and 45 [90%] of 50 in the office-based biofeedback group). 34 (68%) patients in the home-based group and 35 (70%) in the office-based group were classified as responders. All primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline in the two treatment groups (all p<0·0001). Home-based biofeedback therapy was non-inferior to office-based therapy for number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, satisfaction with bowel function, and balloon expulsion time in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and for dyssynergia in the per-protocol analysis. No adverse events were reported. The median cost of home-based biofeedback therapy was significantly lower than that for office-based treatment (US$1081·70, IQR 794·90-1399·30 vs $1942·50, 1621·70-2369·00, p=0·009).InterpretationHome-based and office-based biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation improved bowel symptoms and physiology with similar efficacy. A home-based programme could substantially broaden the availability and use of this treatment.FundingNational Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC6206847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Based on the findings of increased IEL in duodenal biopsies in CVID, an overlap with celiac disease has been suggested. In the present study, increased IEL, in particular in the pars descendens of the duodenum, was one of the most frequent histopathological finding. We therefore examined the gene expression profile in pars descendens of duodenum in CVID patients with increased IEL (n=13, IEL mean 34 [range 22-56] IEL/100 EC), CVID with normal levels of IEL (n=7), celiac disease (n=10, Marsh grade 3a or above) and healthy controls (n=17) by gene expression microarray GI histopathological findings in 53 CVID patients that underwent upper and lower endoscopic examination were addressed. For the microarray analysis 20 CVID (7 CVID_normal and 13 CVID with incresed IEL), 10 patients with celiac diseases and 17 healthy controls were included.
2015-09-02 | E-GEOD-72625 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Based on the findings of increased IEL in duodenal biopsies in CVID, an overlap with celiac disease has been suggested. In the present study, increased IEL, in particular in the pars descendens of the duodenum, was one of the most frequent histopathological finding. We therefore examined the gene expression profile in pars descendens of duodenum in CVID patients with increased IEL (n=12, IEL mean 34 [range 22-56] IEL/100 EC), CVID with normal levels of IEL (n=8), celiac disease (n=10, Marsh grade 3a or above) and healthy controls (n=17) by gene expression microarray
2015-09-02 | GSE72625 | GEO
Project description:BACKGROUND: Many patients with idiopathic constipation do not respond to conventional medical treatments. Recently biofeedback has been proposed as an alternative treatment but the long-term results, and which patients benefit, are unknown. Treatment has usually been restricted to patients with normal colonic transit and impaired pelvic floor coordination on straining. AIMS: To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome of biofeedback treatment in idiopathic constipation. METHODS: One hundred consecutive contactable patients who had completed a course of biofeedback more than 12 months previously were identified. Pretreatment details of bowel function and symptoms, whole gut transit time, and anorectal physiological testing, which had been previously prospectively collected, were collated. Follow up consisted of structured interview. Sixty five per cent had slow transit and 59% had paradoxical pelvic floor contraction on straining. RESULTS: Median follow up was 23 months (range 12-44). On long-term follow up 55% felt that biofeedback had helped and 57% felt their constipation was improved. There was a significant reduction in need to strain, abdominal pain, bloating, and oral laxative use. Spontaneous bowel frequency was significantly improved by treatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, males and females, and those with and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter on straining, benefited equally from treatment. Anorectal testing did not predict outcome. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that biofeedback is an effective long term treatment for the majority of patients with idiopathic constipation unresponsive to traditional treatments. Pelvic floor abnormalities and transit time should not form selection criteria for treatment.
| S-EPMC1727071 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionBiofeedback therapy (BFT) is a well-known treatment for functional anorectal disorders. The effect of BFT was monitored in fecal incontinence (FI) patients with the Fecobionics test and with the conventional technologies, anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test (BET).MethodsStudies were performed in 12 patients before and after 8 weeks of biofeedback training. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) score was obtained. Anal resting and squeeze pressures were measured before the bag was distended in the rectum until urge to defecate. Pressure recordings were made during Fecobionics evacuation.ResultsBFT resulted in 24% reduction in FISI scores (P < 0.01). Seven patients were characterized as responders. Anal pressures, the urge-to-defecate volume, and defecatory parameters did not change significantly during BFT. For ARM-BET, the maximum anal squeeze pressure, the urge-to-defecate volume, and the expulsion time were lower after BFT compared with those before BFT (P < 0.05). For Fecobionics, the change in urge volume (r = 0.74, P < 0.05) and the change in defecation index (r = 0.79, P < 0.01) were associated with the change in FISI score. None of the ARM-BET parameters were associated with the change in FISI score. It was studied whether any pre-BFT data could predict treatment success. The Fecobionics expulsion duration and the defecation index predicted the outcome (P < 0.05). The defecation index had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 72%. None of the ARM-BET parameters predicted the outcome (all P > 0.2).DiscussionFecobionics was used as a tool to monitor the effect of BFT and proved better than conventional technologies for monitoring and predicting the outcome in the FISI score.
| S-EPMC9132520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesBiofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown.MethodsQOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms.ResultsOne hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback.DiscussionBiofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.
| S-EPMC6557279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many studies have reported abnormal gut microbiota in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), suggesting a link between gut microbiome and autism-like behaviors. Modifying the gut microbiome is a potential route to improve gastrointestinal (GI) and behavioral symptoms in children with ASD, and fecal microbiota transplant could transform the dysbiotic gut microbiome toward a healthy one by delivering a large number of commensal microbes from a healthy donor. We previously performed an open-label trial of Microbiota Transfer Therapy (MTT) that combined antibiotics, a bowel cleanse, a stomach-acid suppressant, and fecal microbiota transplant, and observed significant improvements in GI symptoms, autism-related symptoms, and gut microbiota. Here, we report on a follow-up with the same 18 participants two years after treatment was completed. Notably, most improvements in GI symptoms were maintained, and autism-related symptoms improved even more after the end of treatment. Important changes in gut microbiota at the end of treatment remained at follow-up, including significant increases in bacterial diversity and relative abundances of Bifidobacteria and Prevotella. Our observations demonstrate the long-term safety and efficacy of MTT as a potential therapy to treat children with ASD who have GI problems, and warrant a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the future.
| S-EPMC6456593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report a case of intermittent lower abdominal pain and distension accompanied by defecation difficulties for 3 years due to Chilaiditi syndrome in a 59-year-old male. Before admission to our hospital, the patient had undergone gastroscopy, which showed gastritis and duodenitis, and colonoscopy, which showed cecum deformation and cicatricial changes of the mucous membrane in the colon hepatic flexure. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen at our hospital confirmed right hepatic atrophy and interposition of the colon. Moreover, CT simulation endoscopy identified cystic dilatation in the colon hepatic flexure with the widest diameter of 8.2 cm. The patient was diagnosed with Chilaiditi syndrome. As the patient was unable to endure his defecation difficulties, he underwent a laparoscope-assisted right hemicolectomy. The patient had a good recovery. During the follow-up period of 9 mo, the patient remained symptom-free.
| S-EPMC6288512 | biostudies-other