skip to main content

Suspected neutropenic sepsis with circulatory compromise — MRCEM SBA MCQ

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

EasyResuscitation and critical illnessSuspected neutropenic sepsis with circulatory compromiseMRCEM SBA

A 61-year-old man attends the emergency department nine days after chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He has developed rigors and increasing weakness. His temperature is 37.2°C, heart rate 132/min, blood pressure 82/46 mmHg and venous lactate 3.6 mmol/L. He has a tunnelled central venous catheter, but its exit site is unremarkable. Blood cultures have been taken; the full blood count is pending. He has no antibiotic allergy, known resistant infection or history of heart failure. Intravenous access and monitoring are in place. Admission and urgent senior review are being arranged. Which immediate treatment strategy is most appropriate?

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

Reveal the answer and explanation

Correct answer: D — Give a 250 mL intravenous crystalloid bolus and intravenous piperacillin–tazobactam now.

Recent systemic anticancer treatment followed by rigors and circulatory compromise warrants treatment for **suspected neutropenic sepsis**. A normal temperature does not make it safe to await the neutrophil count: NICE recommends immediate empirical antibiotics for suspected neutropenic sepsis and intravenous piperacillin–tazobactam monotherapy when intravenous treatment is needed, unless patient-specific or local microbiological factors indicate otherwise. ([nice.org.uk](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG253/chapter/could-this-be-sepsis)) His marked hypotension also requires prompt fluid resuscitation. NICE recommends an initial 250 mL isotonic crystalloid bolus, followed by reassessment and further boluses if needed; the first bolus is not the entirety of his resuscitation. ([nice.org.uk](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng253/chapter/Managing-suspected-sepsis)) **A** delays essential antibiotics until a confirmatory result arrives. **B** may appeal because he is severely unwell, but an aminoglycoside is not routinely added without a specific microbiological indication. **C** may appeal because he has a central line, but its presence alone does not warrant empirical glycopeptide cover. **E** provides immediate intravenous treatment but substitutes ceftriaxone for the recommended initial regimen without a stated reason. Ongoing reassessment and escalation remain necessary if his perfusion does not improve. ([nice.org.uk](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg151/chapter/recommendations))

Reference: Suspected sepsis in people aged 16 or over — Could this be sepsis? (19 November 2025) — https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG253/chapter/could-this-be-sepsis Neutropenic sepsis: prevention and management in people with cancer — Recommendations (19 September 2012) — https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg151/chapter/recommendations Suspected sepsis in people aged 16 or over — Managing suspected sepsis (19 November 2025) — https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng253/chapter/Managing-suspected-sepsis