An Office-Based, Point-of-Care Test Predicts Treatment Outcomes With Community-Based Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal evacuation disorders are common among constipated patients. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an investigational point-of-care test (rectal expulsion device [RED]) to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. METHODS: We enrolled patients meeting Rome IV criteria for functional constipation failing fiber/laxatives for more than 2 weeks. RED was inserted and self-inflated, and then time-to-expel was measured in a left lateral position. All patients underwent empiric community-based pelvic floor physical therapy in routine care with outcomes measured at 12 weeks. The primary end point was global clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms score reduction, >0.75 vs baseline). Secondary end points included improvement in health-related quality-of-life (Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score reduction, >1.0) and complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency (Food and Drug Administration complete spontaneous bowel movement responder definition). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients enrolled in a feasibility phase to develop the use-case protocol. Sixty patients enrolled in a blinded validation phase; 52 patients (mean, 46.9 y; 94.2% women) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the left lateral position, RED predicted global clinical response (generalized area under the curve [gAUC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76]), health-related quality-of-life response (gAUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77; P < .001), and complete spontaneous bowel movement response (gAUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71; P < .001). As a screening test, a normal RED effectively rules out evacuation disorders (expected clinical response, 8.9%; P = .042). Abnormal RED in the left lateral position (defined as expulsion within 5 seconds or >120 seconds) predicted 48.9% clinical response to physical therapy. A seated maneuver enhanced the likelihood of clinical response (71.1% response with seated RED retained >13 seconds) but likely is unnecessary in most settings. CONCLUSIONS: RED offers an opportunity to disrupt the paradigm by offering a personalized approach to managing chronic constipation in the community (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04159350).

Utility of Anorectal Testing to Predict Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Chronic Constipation: Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a clinical trial that aimed to inform the clinical utility of anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion time (BET) as up-front tests to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy as the next best step to address chronic constipation after failing an empiric trial of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. METHODS: We enrolled 60 treatment-naïve patients with Rome IV functional constipation failing 2 weeks of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. All patients underwent ARM/BET (London protocol) followed by community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. The primary end point was clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms instrument). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients completed pelvic rehabilitation and the post-treatment questionnaire. Contemporary frameworks define dyssynergia on balloon expulsion time and dyssynergic patterns (ARM), but these parameters did not inform clinical outcomes (area under the curve [AUC], <0.6). Squeeze pressure (>192.5 mm Hg on at least 1 of 3 attempts; sensitivity, 47.6%; specificity, 83.9%) and limited squeeze duration (inability to sustain 50% of squeeze pressure for >20 seconds; sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 58.1%) were the strongest predictors of clinical outcomes. Combining BET with squeeze duration (BET greater than 6.5 seconds and limited squeeze duration) improved predictive accuracy (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90). BET poorly predicted outcomes as a single test (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Using ARM to evaluate squeeze profiles, rather than dyssynergia, appears useful to screen patients with chronic constipation for up-front pelvic floor physical therapy based on likelihood of response. BET appears noninformative as a single screening test (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04159350).