Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11469994

Rumination.

Abstract

Rumination is an unusual gastrointestinal symptom that is characterized by the repetitive regurgitation of gastric contents into the oropharynx. The regurgitation occurs very soon after a meal and tends to persist for 1 to 2 hours. Rumination is defined by the setting in which it occurs. It is seen in three distinct populations: infants; individuals with psychiatric and neurologic disorders, particularly developmental disabilities; and adults who do not have overt psychiatric or neurologic disorders. The hallmark of rumination, which separates it from other disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract (such as gastroesophageal reflux disease or cyclic vomiting syndrome), is the fact that in patients with rumination, the gastric contents appear in the oropharynx without retching or nausea. Rather, the patient makes a conscious decision on how to handle the regurgitated material after it presents into the oropharynx. The regurgitated meal usually consists of undigested or partially digested food. The regurgitation is effortless or at most is preceded by a sensation of belching immediately prior to the regurgitation itself. The management of patients with rumination needs to be accomplished in a highly individualized manner. Children with infant rumination syndrome often have symptoms related to significant defects in bonding with their mother. Thus, problems of mother-child bonding in pediatric patients with rumination syndrome should be identified and appropriately addressed. The management of adult patients with developmental disabilities or neurologic impairments who ruminate focuses mainly on behavioral modalities, including adversive conditioning and contingency management. The healthy adult who ruminates and has no evidence of neurologic or developmental disability is best seen as someone with a habit. Management in these patients is directed towards adjunctive therapies (ie, the use of proton pump inhibitors or H(2 )receptor antagonists to decrease acid injury to the esophagus) as well as identifying situations and emotions that trigger the patient's symptoms. Randomized controlled trials of various treatment modalities need to be undertaken; likewise, the evaluation strategy needed to best diagnose rumination is yet to be well defined. At this time, the challenge for gastroenterologists is to understand the nature of rumination, to identify individuals at high risk, and to use the management strategies most associated with good outcomes in patients with rumination in various clinical settings.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kevin W. Olden. 2001. Rumination.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-001-0061-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗