Advertisement

Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 402–404 | Cite as

Pregnancy-related constipation

  • Charlene M. Prather
Article

Abstract

Constipation is a common complaint in pregnancy. Its symptoms may include infrequent defecation, hard or scybalous stool, or excessive straining. An extensive evaluation is usually unnecessary for women who present with constipation for the first time during pregnancy. Most patients respond to dietary measures or simple laxatives. Few laxatives have been evaluated in clinical trials for use in pregnancy. Evidence supports treatment with fiber supplements and senna. The use of a pharmacologic agent for treatment of constipation during pregnancy must be weighed against possible adverse effects. Most laxatives carry a pregnancy category B or C classification. First-line therapy includes increasing fiber intake through diet or supplements. Osmotic laxatives may be beneficial for some patients. The short-term use of osmotic or stimulant laxatives is generally reserved for patients who fail to respond to dietary changes or bulking agents.

Keywords

Constipation Irritable Bowel Syndrome Lactulose Tegaserod Gastrointestinal Transit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenhalf JO, Leonard HS: Laxatives in the treatment of constipation in pregnant and breast-feeding mothers. Practitioner 1973, 210:259–263. Pregnant women were randomly assigned to treatment with senna, dioctyl sodium succinate, sterculia plus frangula, or sterculia. Senna was more effective than the bulking agents but were more likely to cause diarrhea and abdominal pain.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy N, Lemberg E, Sharf M: Bowel habit in pregnancy. Digestion 1971, 4:216–222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gill RC, Bowes KL, Kingma YJ: Effect of progesterone on canine colonic smooth muscle. Gastroenterology 1985, 88:1941–1947.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryan JP, Bhojwani A: Colonic transit in rats: effect of ovariectomy, sex steroid hormones, and pregnancy. Am J Physiol 1986, 251:G46-G50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christofides ND, Ghatei MA, Bloom SR, et al.: Decreased plasma motilin concentrations in pregnancy. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1982, 285:1453–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wald A, Van Thiel DH, Hoechstetter L, et al.: Effect of pregnancy on gastrointestinal transit. Dig Dis Sci 1982, 27:1015–1018. The authors evaluated orocecal transit time in 15 women in the third trimester of pregnancy and postpartum with lactulose breath testing. The mean orocecal transit time in the third trimester was 131 minutes and in postpartum it was 93 minutes (P < 0.01).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawson M, Kern F Jr, Everson GT: Gastrointestinal transit time in human pregnancy: prolongation in the second and third trimesters followed by postpartum normalization. Gastroenterology 1985, 89:996–999. In this study the authors measured orocecal transit using a lactulose breath test in 27 women during pregnancy and postpartum. Transit was most delayed in the second and third trimester. In the first trimester transit was not delayed compared with postpartum. Transit was correlated with serum progesterone, showing an increase in transit as progesterone increased to 80 ng/mL. No further increase was seen with levels from 80 to 230 ng/mL, suggesting a threshold effect for the progesterone level.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson AS, Whichelow MJ: Constipation during pregnancy: dietary fibre intake and the effect of fibre supplementation. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr 1985, 39:202–207. Forty pregnant women with constipation were randomly assigned to a corn-based fiber, wheat-bran fiber, or control for 2 weeks. Both types of fiber were effective in increasing stool frequency.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marlett JA, McBurney MI, Slavin JL: Position of the American Dietetic Association: health implications of dietary fiber. J Am Diet Assoc 2002, 102:993–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McEligot AJ, Gilpin EA, Rock CL, et al.: High dietary fiber consumption is not associated with gastrointestinal discomfort in a diet intervention trial. J Am Diet Assoc 2002, 102:549–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnoll R, Zimmerman BJ: Self-regulation training enhances dietary self-efficacy and dietary fiber consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 2001, 101:1006–1011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jewell DJ, Young G: Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004, 2. This paper represents an evidence-based review of different treatments for constipation in pregnancy. Only two trials were deemed of adequate quality for inclusion. Fiber supplements increased defecation and improved stool form. Stimulant laxatives (senna) were more effective than bulking agents but are associated with more side effects.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewis JH, Weingold AB: The use of gastrointestinal drugs during pregnancy and lactation. Am J Gastroenterol 1985, 80:912–923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagstaff AJ, Frampton JE, Croom KF: Tegaserod: a review of its use in the management of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in women. Drugs 2003, 63:1101–1120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlene M. Prather
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologySaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations