skip to main content

Intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism — MRCEM SBA MCQ

Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.

HardCardiovascular emergenciesIntermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolismMRCEM SBA

A 67-year-old man presents with sudden breathlessness and pleuritic chest pain. CT pulmonary angiography confirms bilateral pulmonary emboli and shows a right-to-left ventricular diameter ratio of 1.2. High-sensitivity troponin T is 53 ng/L (upper reference limit 14 ng/L). His heart rate is 116/min, oxygen saturation is 94% on air and lactate is 1.4 mmol/L. Repeated blood pressures over two hours are 118–126/72–80 mmHg; he is alert with warm peripheries. Renal function is normal. He has no active bleeding, contraindication to anticoagulation or previous anticoagulant treatment. Which initial treatment and disposition plan is most appropriate?

Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.

Reveal the answer and explanation

Correct answer: D — Start apixaban and admit for monitored observation with reassessment for deterioration.

This is confirmed pulmonary embolism with right ventricular enlargement and myocardial injury. Tachycardia, imaging and troponin findings identify a patient at appreciable risk of deterioration, despite preserved blood pressure and perfusion. Monitored inpatient observation is therefore more appropriate than ambulatory treatment. ([nnuh.nhs.uk](https://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/publication/download/massive-acute-pulmonary-embolism-jcg0077-3/)) NICE recommends apixaban or rivaroxaban for confirmed pulmonary embolism when suitable, and advises against systemic thrombolysis in haemodynamically stable patients even when right ventricular dysfunction is present. ([nice.org.uk](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng158/chapter/Recommendations)) A provides appropriate anticoagulation but incorrectly treats this as a low-risk outpatient presentation. B mistakes right ventricular strain and raised troponin for an indication for immediate systemic thrombolysis; haemodynamic instability would change that decision. C offers therapeutic anticoagulation, but routine unmonitored observation is inadequate for this risk profile. A UK hospital guideline recommends a high-acuity setting with close observation for intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism. ([nnuh.nhs.uk](https://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/publication/download/massive-acute-pulmonary-embolism-jcg0077-3/)) E is inappropriate because he can receive anticoagulation; an inferior vena cava filter is considered when anticoagulation is contraindicated, rather than as its replacement here. ([nice.org.uk](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng158/chapter/Recommendations))

Reference: NICE NG158: Venous thromboembolic diseases — recommendations 1.3.8 and 1.6.3 (Updated 2 August 2023) — https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng158/chapter/Recommendations NICE NG158: outpatient treatment and inferior vena caval filters (Updated 2 August 2023) — https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng158/chapter/Recommendations Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Adults, sections 3.6–3.8 (Approved 5 October 2023; review due 5 October 2026) — https://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/publication/download/massive-acute-pulmonary-embolism-jcg0077-3/