Comparing the Efficacy of Two Drugs Senalin and Bisacodyl in Treatment of Constipation in Intensive Care Units' Patients

Alikiaii, Babak; Azad Majedi, Mohammad; Hashemi, Seyed Taghi; Kiani, Maryam

Comparing the Efficacy of Two Drugs Senalin and Bisacodyl in Treatment of Constipation in Intensive Care Units' Patients

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

² Department of Anesthesiology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

Abstract

Background: Constipation is an intestinal syndrome that can be created alone or in the context of another disease in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Given the role of sennosides in increasing the transfer rate of materials from the large intestine, we aimed to compare the effect of senalin with bisacodyl on the treatment of constipation in patients admitted to ICUs. Materials and Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, 70 patients admitted to the ICU were divided into two groups. The senalin recipient group received senalin with a dose of 500 mg daily for 3 days. The bisacodyl recipient group received bisacodyl with a dose of 10 mg daily for 3 days. Results: The mean of defecation frequency during the 2^nd day of treatment of constipation was significantly higher in the group receiving bisacodyl than in the senalin group (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of fecal consistency in any of the study days (P < 0.05). The prevalence of complications in the 3^rd day of treatment was significantly higher in bisacodyl group than in the senalin group (P = 0.04). Conclusion: Given the lack of difference in the efficacy of two drugs, fecal consistency, daily defecation frequency and fewer complications of senalin compared to bisacodyl, it s eems that this drug can be used as an appropriate treatment for constipation in patients admitted to ICUs.

Keywords

References

1.	Ghoshal UC. Chronic constipation in rome IV era: The indian perspective. Indian J Gastroenterol 2017;36:163-73.
2.	Vazquez Roque M, Bouras EP. Epidemiology and management of chronic constipation in elderly patients. Clin Interv Aging 2015;10:919-30.
3.	Mutlu GM, Mutlu EA, Factor P. GI complications in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest 2001;119:1222-41.
4.	Mostafa SM, Bhandari S, Ritchie G, Gratton N, Wenstone R. Constipation and its implications in the critically ill patient. Br J Anaesth 2003;91:815-9.
5.	Patanwala AE, Abarca J, Huckleberry Y, Erstad BL. Pharmacologic management of constipation in the critically ill patient. Pharmacotherapy 2006;26:896-902.
6.	van der Spoel JI, Schultz MJ, van der Voort PH, de Jonge E. Influence of severity of illness, medication and selective decontamination on defecation. Intensive Care Med 2006;32:875-80.
7.	Sharma A, Rao S. Constipation: Pathophysiology and current therapeutic approaches. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2017;239:59-74.
8.	Yao YB, Cao YQ, Guo XT, Yi J, Liang HT, Wang C, et al. Biofeedback therapy combined with traditional chinese medicine prescription improves the symptoms, surface myoelectricity, and anal canal pressure of the patients with spleen deficiency constipation. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013;2013:830714.
9.	Wald A. Constipation: Advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA 2016;315:185-91.
10.	Nelson AD, Camilleri M, Chirapongsathorn S, Vijayvargiya P, Valentin N, Shin A, et al. Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gut 2017;66:1611-22.
11.	Müller-Lissner S. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for the current chronic constipation treatments. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2013;9:391-401.
12.	Serrano-Falcón B, Rey E. The safety of available treatments for chronic constipation. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2017;16:1243-53.
13.	Herve S, Leroi AM, Mathiex-Fortunet H, Garnier P, Karoui S, Menard JF, et al. Effects of polyethylene glycol 4000 on 24-h manometric recordings of left colonic motor activity. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001;13:647-54.
14.	Matsumoto M, Ishige A, Yazawa Y, Kondo M, Muramatsu K, Watanabe K, et al. Promotion of intestinal peristalsis by Bifidobacterium spp. capable of hydrolysing sennosides in mice. PLoS One 2012;7:e31700.
15.	Leng-Peschlow E. Effects of sennosides A+B and bisacodyl on rat large intestine. Pharmacology 1989;38:310-8.
16.	Cittadini G, Sardanelli F, De Cicco E, Valle M, Rosso E, Parodi RC, et al. Bowel preparation for the double-contrast barium enema: How to maintain coating with cleansing? Clin Radiol 1999;54:216-20.
17.	Kierkus J, Horvath A, Szychta M, Woynarowski M, Wegner A, Wiernicka A, et al. High- versus low-volume polyethylene glycol plus laxative versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013;57:230-5.
18.	Leng-Peschlow E. Acceleration of large intestine transit time in rats by sennosides and related compounds. J Pharm Pharmacol 1986;38:369-73.

Advanced Biomedical Research