BACKGROUND: Acute peptic ulcer bleeding is still a major reason for hospital admission. Especially the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers needs a structured therapeutic approach due to the higher morbidity and mortality compared to gastric ulcers. Patient with these bleeding ulcers are often in a high-risk situation, which requires multidisciplinary treatment. SUMMARY: This review provides a structured approach to modern management of bleeding duodenal ulcers and elucidates therapeutic practice in high-risk situations. Initial management including pharmacologic therapy, risk stratification, endoscopy, surgery, and transcatheter arterial embolization are reviewed and their role in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers is critically discussed. Additionally, a future perspective regarding prophylactic therapeutic approaches is outlined. KEY MESSAGES: Beside pharmacotherapeutic and endoscopic advances, bleeding management of high-risk duodenal ulcers is still a challenge. When bleeding persists or rebleeding occurs and the gold standard endoscopy fails, surgical and radiological procedures are indicated to manage ulcer bleeding. Surgical procedures are performed to control hemorrhage, but they are still associated with a higher morbidity and a longer hospital stay. In the meantime, transcatheter arterial embolization is recommended as an alternative to surgery and more often replaces surgery in the management of failed endoscopic hemostasis. Future studies are needed to improve risk stratification and therefore enable a better selection of high-risk ulcers and optimal treatment. Additionally, the promising approach of prophylactic embolization in high-risk duodenal ulcers has to be further investigated to reduce rebleeding and improve outcomes in these patients.
BACKGROUND: Acute peptic ulcer bleeding is still a major reason for hospital admission. Especially the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers needs a structured therapeutic approach due to the higher morbidity and mortality compared to gastric ulcers. Patient with these bleeding ulcers are often in a high-risk situation, which requires multidisciplinary treatment. SUMMARY: This review provides a structured approach to modern management of bleeding duodenal ulcers and elucidates therapeutic practice in high-risk situations. Initial management including pharmacologic therapy, risk stratification, endoscopy, surgery, and transcatheter arterial embolization are reviewed and their role in the management of bleeding duodenal ulcers is critically discussed. Additionally, a future perspective regarding prophylactic therapeutic approaches is outlined. KEY MESSAGES: Beside pharmacotherapeutic and endoscopic advances, bleeding management of high-risk duodenal ulcers is still a challenge. When bleeding persists or rebleeding occurs and the gold standard endoscopy fails, surgical and radiological procedures are indicated to manage ulcer bleeding. Surgical procedures are performed to control hemorrhage, but they are still associated with a higher morbidity and a longer hospital stay. In the meantime, transcatheter arterial embolization is recommended as an alternative to surgery and more often replaces surgery in the management of failed endoscopic hemostasis. Future studies are needed to improve risk stratification and therefore enable a better selection of high-risk ulcers and optimal treatment. Additionally, the promising approach of prophylactic embolization in high-risk duodenal ulcers has to be further investigated to reduce rebleeding and improve outcomes in these patients.
Authors: James Y W Lau; Rapat Pittayanon; Ka-Tak Wong; Nutcha Pinjaroen; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Rungsun Rerknimitr; Ingrid Lisanne Holster; Ernst J Kuipers; Kai-Chun Wu; Kim W L Au; Francis K L Chan; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Gut Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ayodele Odutayo; Michael J R Desborough; Marialena Trivella; Adrian J Stanley; Carolyn Dorée; Gary S Collins; Sally Hopewell; Susan J Brunskill; Brennan C Kahan; Richard F A Logan; Alan N Barkun; Michael F Murphy; Vipul Jairath Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Dennis M Jensen; Thomas O G Kovacs; Rome Jutabha; Gustavo A Machicado; Ian M Gralnek; Thomas J Savides; James Smith; Mary Ellen Jensen; Gwen Alofaituli; Jeff Gornbein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Càndid Villanueva; Alan Colomo; Alba Bosch; Mar Concepción; Virginia Hernandez-Gea; Carles Aracil; Isabel Graupera; María Poca; Cristina Alvarez-Urturi; Jordi Gordillo; Carlos Guarner-Argente; Miquel Santaló; Eduardo Muñiz; Carlos Guarner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stig B Laursen; Harry R Dalton; Iain A Murray; Nick Michell; Matt R Johnston; Michael Schultz; Jane M Hansen; Ove B Schaffalitzky de Muckadell; Oliver Blatchford; Adrian J Stanley Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Joseph Jy Sung; Philip Wy Chiu; Francis K L Chan; James Yw Lau; Khean-Lee Goh; Lawrence Hy Ho; Hwoon-Young Jung; Jose D Sollano; Takuji Gotoda; Nageshwar Reddy; Rajvinder Singh; Kentaro Sugano; Kai-Chun Wu; Chun-Yin Wu; David J Bjorkman; Dennis M Jensen; Ernst J Kuipers; Angel Lanas Journal: Gut Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 23.059