Neutropenic Sepsis: A Contemporary Review for the Critical Care Clinician

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Abstract

Neutropenic sepsis remains a life-threatening emergency in immunocompromised patients, particularly those undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and immunosuppressive therapies. Despite advances in antimicrobial therapy and supportive care, mortality rates remain substantial, ranging from 5-20% in solid malignancies to 40-50% in hematological malignancies with profound neutropenia. This review synthesizes current evidence on pathophysiology, risk stratification, diagnostic approaches, antimicrobial management, and adjunctive therapies, with practical insights for the intensivist managing these complex patients.

Introduction

Neutropenic sepsis, defined as fever ≥38.3°C (101°F) once or ≥38°C (100.4°F) sustained over one hour, accompanied by an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <0.5 × 10⁹/L or expected to fall below this threshold within 48 hours, represents a medical emergency requiring immediate intervention.¹ The increasing complexity of cancer therapeutics, including novel immunotherapies and targeted agents, has reshaped the epidemiology and clinical presentation of this syndrome.

The critical care physician must navigate a delicate balance: aggressive empirical antimicrobial therapy to prevent overwhelming sepsis while avoiding unnecessary broad-spectrum coverage that promotes resistance and toxicity. This review provides evidence-based guidance tailored to the intensive care environment.

Pathophysiology: Beyond Simple Neutropenia

The Impaired Host Defense

Neutropenia disrupts the fundamental architecture of innate immunity. With ANC <0.1 × 10⁹/L (profound neutropenia), patients lack the cellular machinery for pus formation, making classical inflammatory signs unreliable. The absence of neutrophils abolishes the ability to generate fever-inducing pyrogens at infection sites, potentially masking the severity of underlying infection.²

PEARL: The absence of localizing signs does NOT exclude serious infection. A neutropenic patient may have pneumonia without infiltrates, perianal abscess without fluctuance, or peritonitis without rigidity.

Mucosal Barrier Disruption

Cytotoxic chemotherapy induces mucositis throughout the gastrointestinal tract, creating portals for bacterial translocation. The oral mucosa, esophagus, and intestinal epithelium develop microscopic and macroscopic ulcerations, allowing commensal organisms—particularly Gram-negative bacilli, viridans streptococci, and anaerobes—to enter the bloodstream.³

Microbial Ecology Shifts

The neutropenic patient's microbiome undergoes dramatic alterations due to:

Antibiotic pressure (prophylaxis and treatment)
Chemotherapy-induced dysbiosis
Hospitalization with nosocomial organism exposure
Central venous catheter colonization

This creates a "perfect storm" for multidrug-resistant organisms and opportunistic pathogens.⁴

Risk Stratification: Not All Neutropenic Sepsis is Equal

The MASCC Score

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index stratifies patients into low-risk (score ≥21) and high-risk (score <21) categories based on:

Burden of illness (mild vs. moderate/severe symptoms)
Absence of hypotension
Absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Solid tumor or hematologic malignancy with no previous fungal infection
Outpatient status at fever onset
Age <60 years
Degree of dehydration⁵

HACK: The MASCC score was NOT designed for ICU patients. By definition, any patient requiring intensive care has high-risk features. However, understanding the score helps identify which patients on the wards are likely to deteriorate and require ICU transfer.

CISNE Score (Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia)

More contemporary than MASCC, the CISNE score specifically predicts complications in seemingly stable patients:

ECOG performance status ≥2 (2 points)
Chronic cardiovascular disease (1 point)
Chronic respiratory disease (1 point)
ANC <0.1 × 10⁹/L (1 point)
Monocyte count <0.2 × 10⁹/L (1 point)
NCI mucositis grade ≥2 (1 point)

Score ≥3 indicates high risk for complications.⁶

ICU-Specific Risk Factors

Patients requiring intensive care typically have:

Hemodynamic instability (septic shock)
Respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation
Multi-organ dysfunction
Profound neutropenia (ANC <0.1 × 10⁹/L)
Hematological malignancy (especially acute leukemia)
Allogeneic HSCT recipients
Breakthrough bacteremia despite prophylaxis

OYSTER: Recent data suggest that early ICU admission (within 24 hours of fever onset) for high-risk patients improves outcomes compared to delayed transfer after clinical deterioration.⁷

Microbiology: A Shifting Landscape

Bacterial Pathogens

Gram-Negative Dominance: Historically, Gram-negative organisms (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) caused 60-70% of infections. Recent surveillance shows continued predominance but with increasing antimicrobial resistance:

Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae: 20-40%
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE): 5-15% in endemic areas
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas: 15-25%⁸

Gram-Positive Emergence: Gram-positive organisms now account for 40-50% of documented infections:

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (catheter-related)
Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA)
Enterococcus species (including VRE)
Viridans streptococci (associated with severe mucositis, quinolone prophylaxis)⁹

PEARL: Viridans streptococcal bacteremia can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), even without pneumonia—watch for rapid deterioration!

Fungal Pathogens

Invasive fungal infections occur in 10-15% of neutropenic patients, rising to 40% in those with prolonged profound neutropenia (>10 days):

Candida species (bloodstream, disseminated)
Aspergillus species (pulmonary, sino-orbital, disseminated)
Mucorales (angio-invasive, rhinocerebral)
Fusarium, Scedosporium (emerging molds)¹⁰

Viral Pathogens

Often overlooked but clinically significant:

Respiratory viruses (influenza, RSV, coronavirus, adenovirus)
Herpes simplex virus (HSV)
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in HSCT recipients
Human herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6) causing encephalitis¹¹

Diagnostic Approach

Initial Evaluation

Clinical Assessment:

Meticulous examination including oral cavity, perianal region, catheter sites, skin
Document ECOG performance status
Assess for organ dysfunction using SOFA score

HACK: Use the "neutropenic physical exam protocol":

Oral cavity with light source (mucositis grade)
Lung auscultation (crackles may be absent even with pneumonia)
Abdominal palpation (peritoneal signs blunted)
Perianal inspection (do NOT perform digital rectal exam—risk of bacteremia)
Skin examination (ecthyma gangrenosum suggests Pseudomonas)
Catheter exit sites (erythema, discharge)

Laboratory Investigations

Essential baseline studies:

Complete blood count with differential
Comprehensive metabolic panel
Liver function tests
Coagulation profile (DIC screening)
Lactate
Procalcitonin (controversial but may aid in antibiotic stewardship)
C-reactive protein
Blood cultures: Minimum 2 sets (peripheral and central line if present) before antibiotics¹²

PEARL: In neutropenic patients, inflammatory markers may be paradoxically low despite severe infection. Procalcitonin >0.5 ng/mL has 80% sensitivity for bacteremia but normal levels don't exclude infection.¹³

Microbiological Sampling

Blood cultures: Draw before antibiotics, repeat if persistent fever at 48-72 hours
Urine culture (even without pyuria—infection can occur without WBCs)
Sputum culture if productive cough
Stool culture/PCR if diarrhea (Clostridium difficile, viral pathogens)
Wound/catheter site cultures as appropriate
Consider fungal biomarkers:
- Serum (1→3)-β-D-glucan (panfungal, excludes Mucor)
- Galactomannan (Aspergillus-specific)
- PCR for Aspergillus DNA (emerging)¹⁴

OYSTER: Serial β-D-glucan and galactomannan screening (twice weekly) in high-risk patients may enable pre-emptive antifungal therapy, reducing mortality compared to empirical or delayed treatment.¹⁵

Imaging

Chest Imaging:

Chest X-ray: Low sensitivity (30-50%) in neutropenia
High-resolution CT chest: Gold standard for pneumonia, recommended in:
- Persistent fever >72 hours
- Respiratory symptoms/signs
- High suspicion for fungal infection
- Planned intensification of immunosuppression

CT findings in invasive aspergillosis:

Early: Ground-glass opacities, nodules
Established: Halo sign (nodule with ground-glass halo)
Recovering: Air-crescent sign (cavitation)¹⁶

HACK: The "halo sign" on CT appears during profound neutropenia (hemorrhage around fungal invasion). The "air-crescent sign" appears during neutrophil recovery (cavitation around necrotic tissue). Timing matters!

Other Imaging:

CT sinus: If facial pain, headache (rhinosinusitis, mucormycosis)
CT abdomen/pelvis: If abdominal pain (typhlitis, hepatosplenic candidiasis, colitis)
Echocardiography: If new murmur, embolic phenomena (endocarditis)

Antimicrobial Management

Empirical Therapy: First-Line Choices

Empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics must be initiated within one hour of fever recognition—delay is associated with increased mortality.¹⁷

Monotherapy vs. Combination Therapy:

Recent meta-analyses demonstrate non-inferiority of antipseudomonal β-lactam monotherapy compared to combination regimens for initial empirical treatment:¹⁸

Preferred Monotherapy Agents:

Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q6h (or extended infusion 3.375 g over 4 hours q8h)
Meropenem 1-2 g IV q8h
Cefepime 2 g IV q8h (caution: neurotoxicity in renal impairment)

PEARL: Extended or continuous infusions of β-lactams optimize pharmacodynamics (time above MIC) and may improve outcomes in critically ill neutropenic patients.¹⁹

When to Use Combination Therapy:

Add an aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone if:

Hemodynamic instability (septic shock)
Known colonization with resistant Gram-negatives
High local resistance rates (>10% resistant Pseudomonas)
Previous β-lactam-resistant infection
Severe mucositis (viridans streptococci risk)

Typical combinations:

Piperacillin-tazobactam + amikacin 15-20 mg/kg IV q24h
Cefepime + ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV q8h²⁰

OYSTER: Don't forget to STOP the aminoglycoside after 3-5 days once clinical stability achieved and culture/susceptibilities guide de-escalation. Prolonged aminoglycoside therapy in critically ill patients invites nephrotoxicity without proven benefit.

Vancomycin: To Add or Not to Add?

Routine addition of vancomycin to empirical regimens is NOT recommended unless specific risk factors present:²¹

Indications for empirical vancomycin:

Hemodynamic instability
Skin/soft tissue infection
Catheter-related infection suspected (erythema, purulence)
Known MRSA colonization
High local MRSA prevalence
Severe mucositis (viridans streptococci)
Positive blood culture with Gram-positive cocci pending identification

Dosing: 15-20 mg/kg IV q8-12h, targeting trough 15-20 μg/mL (AUC/MIC-based dosing preferred if available)

HACK: If vancomycin is added empirically, stop it at 48-72 hours if cultures are negative and patient is improving. Unnecessary vancomycin increases VRE, C. difficile, and nephrotoxicity risk.

Carbapenem Escalation

Reserve carbapenems for:

Patients on fluoroquinolone prophylaxis (ESBL risk)
Known ESBL colonization
Failure to respond to first-line therapy at 48-72 hours
Documented ESBL infection
Severe sepsis/septic shock if high ESBL prevalence

Meropenem 1-2 g IV q8h (preferred for CNS penetration) or Imipenem 500 mg IV q6h²²

Managing Multidrug-Resistant Organisms

ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae:

Carbapenem (meropenem, imipenem)
Alternatives: Cefiderocol (if available)

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE):

Ceftazidime-avibactam 2.5 g IV q8h (covers KPC producers)
Meropenem-vaborbactam 4 g IV q8h (covers KPC)
Cefiderocol 2 g IV q8h (siderophore cephalosporin)
Polymyxins (colistin) as last resort
Consider combination therapy based on infectious disease consultation²³

MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa:

Ceftolozane-tazobactam 3 g IV q8h (excellent anti-pseudomonal activity)
Ceftazidime-avibactam
Cefiderocol
Consider double β-lactam therapy or β-lactam + aminoglycoside for life-threatening infections²⁴

PEARL: For CRE and MDR Pseudomonas, involve infectious diseases and clinical microbiology early. Synergy testing may guide optimal combinations.

Duration of Antibiotics

General principles:

Continue until ANC recovers to >0.5 × 10⁹/L AND patient afebrile for 24-48 hours
Minimum 7-10 days for documented infections
Longer durations for:
- Persistent bacteremia: 14 days from first negative culture
- Pneumonia: 10-14 days
- Deep-seated infections: 4-6 weeks

OYSTER: Stopping antibiotics before neutrophil recovery in an afebrile patient is controversial but supported by some data showing low relapse rates if strict criteria met (IDSA guidelines allow consideration if ANC >0.2 × 10⁹/L, stable, culture-negative).²⁵ In ICU patients, err on the side of continuing until ANC recovery.

Antifungal Therapy

Empirical vs. Pre-emptive vs. Targeted Strategies

Empirical antifungal therapy: Added to persistent fever (≥4-7 days) despite broad-spectrum antibacterials, without documented fungal infection

Pre-emptive therapy: Based on positive biomarkers (β-D-glucan, galactomannan) or suspicious imaging, before clinical diagnosis

Targeted therapy: Documented invasive fungal infection

Evidence: Pre-emptive strategies reduce unnecessary antifungal exposure without increasing mortality compared to empirical approaches, but require intensive monitoring (twice-weekly biomarkers, CT imaging).²⁶

HACK for ICU: Given the mortality risk, most intensivists favor empirical or early pre-emptive antifungal therapy in high-risk patients with persistent fever, rather than awaiting definitive diagnosis.

Empirical/Pre-emptive Antifungal Choices

First-line options:

Liposomal amphotericin B 3-5 mg/kg IV daily
- Broadest spectrum (includes Mucor)
- Nephrotoxic, infusion reactions
- Preferred if mucormycosis suspected
Echinocandins:
- Caspofungin 70 mg IV loading, then 50 mg IV daily
- Micafungin 100-150 mg IV daily
- Anidulafungin 200 mg IV loading, then 100 mg IV daily
- Excellent Candida coverage, reasonable Aspergillus coverage
- Better tolerated than amphotericin B
- Do NOT cover Mucor, Fusarium, Cryptococcus
Voriconazole 6 mg/kg IV q12h × 2 doses, then 4 mg/kg IV q12h
- Excellent Aspergillus coverage
- Drug interactions (CYP450), therapeutic monitoring required (trough 1-5.5 μg/mL)
- Neurotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, visual disturbances
- NOT first-line empirical (reserve for documented aspergillosis)²⁷

PEARL: For empirical therapy in the ICU, echinocandins are often preferred given their safety profile. However, if mucormycosis is suspected (rhinocerebral disease, black necrotic lesions, uncontrolled diabetes, or breakthrough infection on azole prophylaxis), start liposomal amphotericin B immediately.

Targeted Antifungal Therapy

Invasive Candidiasis:

Echinocandin preferred for initial therapy
De-escalate to fluconazole if C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis AND clinically stable
Treat 14 days after clearance of candidemia and resolution of symptoms
Remove central lines if possible²⁸

Invasive Aspergillosis:

Voriconazole remains first-line
Alternatives:
- Isavuconazole 200 mg IV/PO q8h × 6 doses, then 200 mg daily (better tolerated, fewer interactions)
- Liposomal amphotericin B if azole-resistant or intolerant
- Posaconazole delayed-release tablets 300 mg PO BID × 1 day, then 300 mg daily (salvage)
Consider combination therapy (voriconazole + echinocandin) for refractory disease²⁹

Mucormycosis:

Liposomal amphotericin B 5-10 mg/kg/day (high dose)
Add posaconazole or isavuconazole if available
Surgical debridement essential
Mortality remains 40-80% even with optimal therapy³⁰

OYSTER: Early aggressive surgical debridement is the single most important intervention for mucormycosis—it's not just a medical disease. Coordinate with ENT/maxillofacial surgery immediately.

Antifungal Prophylaxis

For patients at highest risk (acute leukemia, allogeneic HSCT recipients):

Posaconazole delayed-release tablets 300 mg PO daily
Fluconazole 400 mg PO/IV daily (if posaconazole unavailable)
Continue throughout neutropenia³¹

HACK: If your patient was on posaconazole or fluconazole prophylaxis and develops breakthrough fungal infection, suspect:

Aspergillus (on fluconazole—no mold coverage)
Mucorales (on azole—intrinsically resistant)
Fusarium or Scedosporium (on any azole)

Adjust empirical therapy accordingly (amphotericin B + voriconazole/isavuconazole for breakthrough on azole).

Viral Considerations

Respiratory Viruses

Influenza, RSV, and other respiratory viruses cause significant morbidity/mortality in neutropenic patients.

Diagnosis: Multiplex PCR on nasopharyngeal swab

Treatment:

Influenza: Oseltamivir 75 mg PO BID × 5-10 days (longer in immunocompromised)
- Consider IV peramivir if unable to take PO
RSV: No proven therapy; ribavirin controversial
Infection control: Droplet precautions³²

PEARL: Don't assume viral pneumonia is "just viral" in neutropenic patients—bacterial superinfection is common. Continue antibacterials.

HSV and VZV

Acyclovir 400 mg PO TID prophylaxis during high-risk periods
Treat active disease with acyclovir 5-10 mg/kg IV q8h³³

CMV

Monitor CMV PCR weekly in allogeneic HSCT recipients
Pre-emptive therapy if positive: Ganciclovir 5 mg/kg IV q12h or foscarnet
Treatment of CMV disease: Same doses for 14-21 days³⁴

Supportive Care in the ICU

Hemodynamic Management

Neutropenic septic shock follows similar principles to conventional septic shock but with unique considerations:

Fluid Resuscitation:

Initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus
Caution with aggressive fluid loading—these patients often have:
- Cardiac dysfunction from chemotherapy (anthracyclines)
- Capillary leak syndrome
- Risk of pulmonary edema

HACK: Use early dynamic measures (passive leg raise, pulse pressure variation if mechanically ventilated) to assess fluid responsiveness rather than empiric boluses beyond initial resuscitation.³⁵

Vasopressors:

Norepinephrine first-line
Target MAP ≥65 mmHg
Consider higher targets if chronic hypertension

Inotropes:

Dobutamine if myocardial dysfunction documented
Beware dobutamine-induced tachyarrhythmias (chemotherapy-related cardiomyopathy)

Mechanical Ventilation

Acute respiratory failure in neutropenic patients portends poor prognosis (mortality 50-80%).³⁶

Strategies to avoid intubation:

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC): First-line for hypoxemic respiratory failure
- Reduces intubation rates vs. conventional O₂
- 40-60 L/min, FiO₂ to target SpO₂ >92%
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV): Controversial
- May be effective in hypercapnic failure
- Associated with worse outcomes in hypoxemic failure if intubation delayed
- Use cautiously with strict criteria for intubation³⁷

PEARL: The "ROX index" (SpO₂/FiO₂ × respiratory rate) predicts HFNC success. ROX <3.85 at 12 hours predicts need for intubation—prepare early rather than crash intubation.³⁸

If intubation required:

Lung-protective ventilation: Tidal volume 6 mL/kg ideal body weight, plateau pressure <30 cmH₂O
PEEP per ARDSNet protocol
Prone positioning if severe ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ <150)
Avoid NIV as salvage post-extubation—use HFNC instead³⁹

OYSTER: Early tracheostomy (7-10 days) may benefit neutropenic patients requiring prolonged ventilation, but timing should account for thrombocytopenia risk and likelihood of neutrophil recovery.

Transfusion Support

Red Blood Cells:

Restrictive strategy: Trigger Hgb <7 g/dL (stable patients)
Liberal strategy: Trigger Hgb <8 g/dL (hemodynamically unstable, ischemic heart disease, active bleeding)
Use CMV-negative or leukoreduced products⁴⁰

Platelets:

Prophylactic: Maintain >10,000/μL (stable) or >20,000/μL (febrile, septic)
Therapeutic: Maintain >50,000/μL (active bleeding, procedures)
HLA-matched platelets if refractory to random donor units⁴¹

HACK: Platelet transfusion "trigger" should be individualized. In severe sepsis with DIC, target >30,000/μL even without bleeding—consumptive coagulopathy can rapidly worsen.

Renal Replacement Therapy

Acute kidney injury occurs in 40-60% of critically ill neutropenic patients, related to:

Sepsis
Nephrotoxic antimicrobials (aminoglycosides, amphotericin B, vancomycin)
Tumor lysis syndrome
Chemotherapy toxicity

RRT considerations:

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) preferred in hemodynamically unstable patients
Adjust antimicrobial dosing for clearance
Use of heparin anticoagulation vs. regional citrate based on bleeding risk⁴²

Nutrition

Early enteral nutrition preferred (within 48 hours) if gut functional
Parenteral nutrition if enteral contraindicated >5-7 days
Neutropenic diet (avoiding fresh fruits/vegetables) is controversial with limited evidence but often practiced⁴³

Colony-Stimulating Factors (G-CSF)

Primary Prophylaxis

G-CSF (filgrastim, pegfilgrastim) reduces febrile neutropenia incidence when used prophylactically after chemotherapy in high-risk regimens (>20% FN risk).⁴⁴

Therapeutic Use in Established Neutropenic Sepsis

Controversial and NOT routinely recommended.

Evidence:

Meta-analyses show no mortality benefit
Modest reduction in hospitalization duration
No reduction in infection-related mortality⁴⁵

Consider G-CSF in:

Profound neutropenia (ANC <0.1 × 10⁹/L) with septic shock
Pneumonia or other severe infection
Fungal infection
Age >65 years
Expected prolonged neutropenia (>10 days)

Dosing: Filgrastim 5 μg/kg SC daily or pegfilgrastim 6 mg SC × 1 (avoid in first 14 days post-chemo)

OYSTER: G-CSF won't save a patient with inadequate antimicrobial coverage or source control, but may marginally help in severe sepsis with profound neutropenia. Don't delay appropriate antibiotics while debating G-CSF—it's adjunctive at best.

Special Considerations

Typhlitis (Neutropenic Enterocolitis)

Necrotizing inflammation of the cecum and right colon in neutropenic patients.

Presentation:

Right lower quadrant pain
Fever, diarrhea (often bloody)
Abdominal distension

Diagnosis:

CT abdomen: Bowel wall thickening (>4 mm), pericolonic stranding, pneumatosis
PEARL: Classic CT finding is "typhlitis triad" = bowel wall thickening, pericolonic fat stranding, and mucosal enhancement⁴⁶

Management:

Broad-spectrum antibiotics including anaerobic coverage (piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenem + metronidazole)
Bowel rest, total parenteral nutrition
Avoid antidiarrheal agents
Surgery for perforation, persistent bleeding, or clinical deterioration despite medical therapy
Mortality 30-50% with perforation⁴⁷

HACK: Typhlitis is a clinical-radiological diagnosis. Don't wait for pathognomonic findings—if you see cecal wall thickening >4mm in a neutropenic patient with RLQ pain, presume typhlitis and treat aggressively.

Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection

Diagnosis:

Differential time to positivity (DTP): Central lumen positive ≥120 minutes before peripheral
Paired quantitative cultures: ≥3-fold higher colony count from catheter than peripheral⁴⁸

Management:

S. aureus, Pseudomonas, fungi: Remove catheter
Coagulase-negative staphylococci: Attempt salvage with systemic antibiotics + antibiotic lock therapy if catheter essential
Treat 7-14 days (longer if complicated)⁴⁹

Antibiotic lock therapy: Vancomycin or gentamicin in heparin, dwell time 12-24 hours daily

Perianal Infections

Common in neutropenic patients with mucositis.

Management:

Broad-spectrum antibiotics including anaerobic coverage
DO NOT perform digital rectal exam (risks bacteremia)
DO NOT incise and drain unless fluctuant abscess after neutrophil recovery
Sitz baths, stool softeners
Imaging (MRI pelvis) if extent unclear⁵⁰

Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Massive tumor cell lysis releases intracellular contents (potassium, phosphate, uric acid).

Triad:

Hyperuricemia
Hyperkalemia
Hyperphosphatemia (with secondary hypocalcemia)

Complications:

Acute kidney injury
Cardiac arrhythmias
Seizures

Prevention:

Aggressive hydration (3 L/m²/day)
Allopurinol 300 mg PO daily (xanthine oxidase inhibitor)
Rasburicase 0.15-0.2 mg/kg IV (recombinant urate oxidase) for high-risk patients

Management:

Correct electrolytes aggressively
Renal replacement therapy if refractory⁵¹

Prognostication and End-of-Life Considerations

ICU Outcomes in Neutropenic Sepsis

Historically dismal (mortality >80%), outcomes have improved but remain sobering:

Overall ICU mortality: 40-60%
If mechanical ventilation required: 50-80%
Allogeneic HSCT recipients: 60-80%⁵²

Favorable prognostic factors:

Solid tumor vs. hematological malignancy
First episode of neutropenia
Responsive primary disease
Neutrophil recovery during ICU stay
Lower SOFA score
Absence of invasive fungal infection⁵³

PEARL: Neutrophil recovery is the single best predictor of ICU survival. Patients who recover ANC >0.5 × 10⁹/L have 2-3× lower mortality.⁵⁴

Goals of Care Discussions

Given high mortality, early conversations about goals of care are essential:

Involve oncology/hematology team
Discuss prognosis honestly
Define treatment limits (code status, mechanical ventilation, RRT)
Revisit daily as clinical trajectory becomes clear

OYSTER: The "ICU trial" approach can be reasonable: Full support for 3-5 days to assess response (neutrophil recovery, infection control, organ function trends). If no improvement, reconvene with family about transitioning to comfort-focused care.⁵⁵

Infection Prevention Strategies

Environmental Controls

Single rooms with positive pressure (≥12 air changes/hour) and HEPA filtration for high-risk patients
Protective (reverse) isolation
Restrict fresh flowers, potted plants (Aspergillus in soil)
Water precautions (avoid tap water, humidifiers—Legionella, Pseudomonas risk)⁵⁶

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis

Antibacterial acterial:**

Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis (levofloxacin 500 mg PO daily or ciprofloxacin 500 mg PO BID) reduces bacteremia and infection-related mortality in high-risk patients (ANC <0.1 × 10⁹/L expected >7 days)
Concerns: Resistance emergence, C. difficile, breakthrough viridans streptococcal infections
Current guidelines support use in highest-risk patients (acute leukemia, HSCT)⁵⁷

PEARL: Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis shifts empirical therapy choice—if patient on prophylaxis develops fever, use a carbapenem empirically due to high ESBL risk.

Antifungal:

Covered previously (posaconazole or fluconazole)

Antiviral:

Acyclovir prophylaxis for HSV/VZV as noted above
CMV prophylaxis (letermovir) or pre-emptive monitoring in allogeneic HSCT

Pneumocystis jirovecii:

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) 1 double-strength tablet PO daily or 1 double-strength tablet PO three times weekly
Alternatives: Dapsone, atovaquone, inhaled pentamidine
Continue during neutropenia and corticosteroid therapy⁵⁸

Hand Hygiene

The single most effective infection prevention measure:

Alcohol-based hand rub before and after patient contact
Healthcare worker compliance monitoring essential⁵⁹

Emerging Concepts and Future Directions

Microbiome Modulation

Intestinal dysbiosis contributes to neutropenic sepsis pathogenesis. Strategies under investigation:

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for microbiome restoration post-HSCT
Selective intestinal decontamination
Probiotic supplementation (currently NOT recommended due to fungemia risk in neutropenic patients)⁶⁰

HACK: Although probiotics are popular, they are potentially harmful in neutropenic patients—case reports of Lactobacillus and Saccharomyces fungemia exist. Avoid until evidence supports safety.

Biomarkers for Precision Medicine

Beyond procalcitonin and traditional markers:

Presepsin (sCD14-ST): May outperform procalcitonin for early sepsis detection
Interleukin-6 and interleukin-8: Correlate with severity
Cell-free DNA: Emerging pathogen detection technology
Host response biomarkers: Gene expression signatures predicting bacterial vs. viral infection⁶¹

Novel Antimicrobials

The pipeline includes:

New β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations: Imipenem-relebactam, aztreonam-avibactam
Novel tetracyclines: Eravacycline, omadacycline
New antifungals: Fosmanogepix (first-in-class Gwt1 inhibitor), ibrexafungerp (oral triterpenoid), rezafungin (long-acting echinocandin)
Bacteriophage therapy: Salvage for MDR infections⁶²

Immunomodulation

Reconstituting host immunity rather than solely relying on antimicrobials:

Granulocyte transfusions: Limited by short half-life, alloimmunization; reserved for refractory life-threatening infections with anticipated neutrophil recovery
IFN-γ therapy: For refractory fungal infections (limited evidence)
Checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cell therapy: Creating new neutropenic sepsis paradigms requiring tailored approaches⁶³

Pearls and Oysters Summary Box

PEARLS (Key Clinical Insights)

Absence of signs ≠ absence of infection: Neutropenic patients lack inflammatory cells to produce classic findings. Subtle symptoms demand aggressive evaluation.
The one-hour rule: Empirical antibiotics within 60 minutes of fever recognition—every hour delayed increases mortality.
Viridans streptococci can kill: Associated with quinolone prophylaxis and severe mucositis, can cause ARDS. Don't underestimate "mouth flora."
Halo sign vs. air-crescent sign timing: Halo sign appears during neutropenia (hemorrhage); air-crescent sign during recovery (cavitation). Different phases of same disease.
Neutrophil recovery = survival: The single best prognostic factor. All supportive care aims to bridge to ANC recovery.
"Normal" labs lie in neutropenia: Absent WBC response, minimal CRP elevation, sterile pyuria without WBCs—infection can be severe despite unimpressive labs.
Extended β-lactam infusions optimize killing: Time above MIC matters for β-lactams. Consider 4-hour infusions or continuous infusion in critically ill patients.
The perianal paradox: Never perform digital rectal exam (bacteremia risk), but don't rush to drain abscesses either—wait for neutrophil recovery unless life-threatening.
ROX index predicts HFNC failure: <3.85 at 12 hours = prepare for intubation, don't wait for crash scenario.
Mucormycosis = surgery + amphotericin: Medical therapy alone is insufficient. Early aggressive debridement is life-saving.

OYSTERS (Hidden Gems and Counterintuitive Concepts)

Early ICU admission improves outcomes: Don't wait for "full code" status or neutrophil recovery—early intensive support (within 24 hours) reduces mortality compared to delayed transfer.
Serial biomarker screening enables pre-emptive antifungal therapy: Twice-weekly β-D-glucan and galactomannan reduce unnecessary antifungals without increasing mortality—consider in high-risk patients rather than reflexive empirical therapy.
Stop the aminoglycoside early: Synergy matters for first 3-5 days in septic shock, but prolonged courses only add toxicity once stabilized. Reassess daily.
Stopping antibiotics before ANC recovery may be safe: Select afebrile, culture-negative patients with ANC >0.2 × 10⁹/L may not need antibiotics until full recovery—but this is controversial in ICU patients; err toward continuation.
G-CSF doesn't save lives in established sepsis: Despite intuitive appeal, meta-analyses show no mortality benefit. Adequate antimicrobials and source control matter more.
Probiotics are dangerous: Lactobacillus and Saccharomyces fungemia reported in neutropenic patients. Avoid despite popularity in other populations.
The ICU trial approach: Ethical framework for time-limited trials (3-5 days full support) with reassessment, rather than premature withdrawal or futile indefinite escalation.
Typhlitis demands medical management first: Surgery reserved for perforation or failure—most resolve with bowel rest, antibiotics, and neutrophil recovery.
NIV may harm in hypoxemic failure: Unlike other sepsis populations, NIV in neutropenic patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure delays intubation and worsens outcomes. Use HFNC instead.
Breakthrough fungal infection on prophylaxis changes the game: Fluconazole prophylaxis → think Aspergillus; Posaconazole prophylaxis → think Mucor or resistant molds. Adjust empirical coverage accordingly.

Clinical Algorithm for the ICU Clinician

Initial Assessment and Stabilization (0-1 hour)

Recognize neutropenic sepsis:
- Fever + ANC <0.5 × 10⁹/L or expected to fall <0.5 × 10⁹/L within 48 hours
- Any temperature + hemodynamic instability in neutropenic patient
Immediate actions:
- Establish IV access (preserve peripheral veins if possible)
- Draw blood cultures (2 sets: peripheral + central if present) BEFORE antibiotics
- Other cultures as indicated (urine, sputum, wounds)
- Baseline labs: CBC, CMP, LFT, coagulation, lactate, procalcitonin
- Chest X-ray (recognize limitations in neutropenia)
Initiate empirical antimicrobials within 60 minutes:
- Hemodynamically stable, no resistance risk factors:
  - Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q6h (extended infusion if possible)
- Septic shock or high ESBL risk:
  - Meropenem 1-2 g IV q8h + consider adding amikacin 15-20 mg/kg IV × 1
- Add vancomycin 15-20 mg/kg IV q8-12h if:
  - Hemodynamic instability
  - Catheter-related infection suspected
  - Severe mucositis
  - Known MRSA colonization
Resuscitation:
- Initial fluid bolus 30 mL/kg crystalloid
- Norepinephrine if MAP <65 mmHg despite fluids
- Monitor fluid responsiveness (avoid excessive fluids)

Hours 1-24: Diagnostic Refinement

Advanced imaging if indicated:
- High-resolution CT chest if:
  - Respiratory symptoms
  - Persistent fever anticipated
  - High fungal risk
- CT abdomen/pelvis if abdominal symptoms
- CT sinuses if facial pain/headache
Assess response:
- Hemodynamic stability
- Source control achieved (catheter removal, drainage)
- Culture results pending
Risk stratification:
- SOFA score
- Expected duration of neutropenia
- Underlying malignancy type
- Previous infections/resistance

Hours 24-72: De-escalation vs. Escalation

Culture-positive patients:
- Narrow spectrum based on susceptibilities
- Reassess vancomycin need at 48 hours if no Gram-positives
- Stop aminoglycoside if added empirically and patient stable
Culture-negative, clinically improving:
- Continue current regimen
- Stop vancomycin at 48-72 hours if added empirically
- Consider imaging if high fungal risk
Persistent fever >72 hours despite antibiotics:
- Review cultures and susceptibilities
- Repeat blood cultures
- CT chest for fungal infection evaluation
- Consider empirical antifungal therapy:
  - Echinocandin (caspofungin, micafungin) first-line
  - Liposomal amphotericin B if mucormycosis suspected
- Reassess for non-infectious causes (drug fever, underlying malignancy)

Ongoing Management

Daily reassessment:
- Source control adequate?
- Antimicrobial spectrum appropriate?
- Neutrophil recovery trend?
- Organ support requirements?
- Goals of care aligned with prognosis?
Antimicrobial stewardship:
- De-escalate based on cultures
- Duration: Continue until ANC >0.5 × 10⁹/L + afebrile 24-48 hours
- Minimum 7-10 days for documented infections
Complications surveillance:
- Fungal infection (biomarkers, imaging)
- C. difficile (if diarrhea)
- Drug toxicity (renal, hepatic, neurologic)
- VTE prophylaxis
- Stress ulcer prophylaxis
- Nutritional support

Key Practice Recommendations (Guideline-Based)

IDSA/ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Summary⁶⁴

High-quality evidence (Strong recommendations):

Empirical antibacterial therapy within 1 hour of fever recognition
Monotherapy with antipseudomonal β-lactam acceptable for most patients
Reserve vancomycin for specific indications, not routine empirical use
Continue antibiotics until ANC recovery in high-risk patients
Antifungal prophylaxis (posaconazole or fluconazole) in highest-risk patients

Moderate-quality evidence (Conditional recommendations):

Consider carbapenem if fluoroquinolone prophylaxis or high ESBL prevalence
Empirical antifungal therapy for persistent fever >4-7 days (vs. pre-emptive approach)
Consider G-CSF in high-risk patients with severe sepsis
Low-risk patients (MASCC score ≥21) may receive outpatient oral therapy—NOT applicable to ICU patients

ESCMID Guidelines for Neutropenic Sepsis⁶⁵

Additional considerations:

Extended or continuous infusion β-lactams in critically ill patients
Therapeutic drug monitoring for vancomycin (AUC-based dosing) and aminoglycosides
Pre-emptive antifungal strategy with biomarker surveillance acceptable alternative to empirical therapy
Early ICU consultation for deteriorating patients
Individualized antimicrobial prophylaxis based on local epidemiology

Quality Improvement Initiatives

Institutions can improve neutropenic sepsis outcomes through:

Time-to-antibiotic protocols:
- Standing orders for empirical antibiotics in febrile neutropenia
- Pre-prepared order sets in electronic health records
- Audit and feedback on door-to-antibiotic times⁶⁶
Antimicrobial stewardship:
- Prospective audit and feedback by infectious disease pharmacists
- De-escalation checklists
- Duration optimization
- Monitoring resistance patterns⁶⁷
Early warning systems:
- Electronic alerts for neutropenic patients with vital sign abnormalities
- Rapid response team activation criteria tailored to neutropenic patients
- Early ICU consultation protocols⁶⁸
Multidisciplinary rounds:
- Oncology, infectious disease, critical care, pharmacy collaboration
- Daily review of antimicrobial appropriateness
- Goals of care alignment

Conclusion

Neutropenic sepsis remains a high-stakes emergency demanding rapid, evidence-based intervention. The modern ICU clinician must balance aggressive empirical therapy against antimicrobial stewardship, recognize atypical presentations resulting from absent inflammatory responses, and navigate complex decisions regarding invasive support in patients with guarded prognoses.

Key principles for success include:

Speed: One-hour antibiotic administration
Spectrum: Appropriate empirical coverage based on individual risk factors
Source control: Early identification and management of infection foci
Stewardship: Daily reassessment and de-escalation when appropriate
Supportive care: Bridging to neutrophil recovery with organ support
Communication: Early, honest goals of care discussions with patients, families, and oncology teams

As novel immunotherapies and targeted cancer treatments evolve the landscape of immunosuppression, the intensivist must remain adaptable, incorporating emerging evidence while adhering to core principles. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: leveraging the full armamentarium of modern critical care to bridge patients through their most vulnerable period to neutrophil recovery and, ultimately, survival.

References

Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):e56-e93.
Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS, Freireich EJ. Quantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med. 1966;64(2):328-340.
van der Velden WJFM, Herbers AHE, Netea MG, Blijlevens NMA. Mucosal barrier injury, fever and infection in neutropenic patients with cancer: introducing the paradigm febrile mucositis. Br J Haematol. 2014;167(4):441-452.
Taur Y, Xavier JB, Lipuma L, et al. Intestinal domination and the risk of bacteremia in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(7):905-914.
Klastersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, et al. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index: a multinational scoring system for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(16):3038-3051.
Carmona-Bayonas A, Gómez J, González-Billalabeitia E, et al. Prognostic evaluation of febrile neutropenia in apparently stable adult cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(5):612-617.
Azoulay E, Schellongowski P, Darmon M, et al. The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1366-1382.
Tumbarello M, Trecarichi EM, Caira M, et al. Clinical outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(4):682-692.
Gudiol C, Aguado JM, Carratalà J. Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors. Virulence. 2016;7(3):298-308.
Kontoyiannis DP, Marr KA, Park BJ, et al. Prospective surveillance for invasive fungal infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, 2001-2006: overview of the Transplant-Associated Infection Surveillance Network (TRANSNET) Database. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(8):1091-1100.
Ljungman P, de la Camara R, Cordonnier C, et al. Management of CMV, HHV-6, HHV-7 and Kaposi-sarcoma herpesvirus (HHV-8) infections in patients with hematological malignancies and after SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42(4):227-240.
Mikulska M, Viscoli C, Orasch C, et al. Aetiology and resistance in bacteraemias among adult and paediatric haematology and cancer patients. J Infect. 2014;68(4):321-331.
Meidani M, Khorvash F, Abolghasemi H, et al. Procalcitonin and quantitative C-reactive protein role in the early diagnosis of sepsis in patients with febrile neutropenia. South Asian J Cancer. 2013;2(4):216-219.
Mercier T, Guldentops E, Patteet S, et al. Beta-D-glucan for diagnosing Pneumocystis pneumonia: a direct comparison between the Wako β-glucan assay and the Fungitell assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(12):e00322-19.
Cordonnier C, Pautas C, Maury S, et al. Empirical versus preemptive antifungal therapy for high-risk, febrile, neutropenic patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(8):1042-1051.
Greene RE, Schlamm HT, Oestmann JW, et al. Imaging findings in acute invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: clinical significance of the halo sign. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(3):373-379.
Perron T, Emara M, Ahmed S. Time to antibiotics and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:162.
Paul M, Yahav D, Bivas A, Fraser A, Leibovici L. Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD005197.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-lactam infusion in severe sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1535-1545.
Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult patients with cancer-related immunosuppression: ASCO and IDSA clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(30):3043-3054.
Bow EJ. There should be no ESKAPE for febrile neutropenic cancer patients: the dearth of effective antibacterial drugs threatens anticancer efficacy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68(3):492-495.
Trecarichi EM, Tumbarello M. Therapeutic options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections. Virulence. 2017;8(4):470-484.
Bassetti M, Peghin M, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. Treatment of infections due to MDR Gram-negative bacteria. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019;6:74.
Pogue JM, Kaye KS, Veve MP, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam vs polymyxin or aminoglycoside-based regimens for the treatment of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(2):304-310.
Bow EJ, Loewen R, Cheang MS, Schacter B. Invasive fungal disease in adults undergoing remission-induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: the pathogenetic role of the antileukemic regimen. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;21(2):361-369.
Maertens J, Girmenia C, Brüggemann RJ, et al. European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(12):3221-3230.
Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):348-359.
Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(4):e1-e50.
Patterson TF, Thompson GR 3rd, Denning DW, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(4):e1-e60.
Cornely OA, Alastruey-Izquierdo A, Arenz D, et al. Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of mucormycosis: an initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology in cooperation with the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(12):e405-e421.
Ullmann AJ, Aguado JM, Arikan-Akdagli S, et al. Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24 Suppl 1:e1-e38.
Hirsch HH, Martino R, Ward KN, Boeckh M, Einsele H, Ljungman P. Fourth European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL-4): guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of human respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, and coronavirus. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(2):258-266.
Styczynski J, Reusser P, Einsele H, et al. Management of HSV, VZV and EBV infections in patients with hematological malignancies and after SCT: guidelines from the Second European Conference on Infections in Leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(10):757-770.
Ljungman P, Boeckh M, Hirsch HH, et al. Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant patients for use in clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(1):87-91.
Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with malignancies. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(8):1106-1114.
Mokart D, Pastores SM, Darmon M. Has survival increased in cancer patients admitted to the ICU? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(10):1570-1572.
Lemiale V, Mokart D, Resche-Rigon M, et al. Effect of noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen therapy on mortality among immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(16):1711-1719.
Roca O, Messika J, Caralt B, et al. Predicting success of high-flow nasal cannula in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: the utility of the ROX index. J Crit Care. 2016;35:200-205.
Azoulay E, Pickkers P, Soares M, et al. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(12):1808-1819.
Holbro A, Infanti L, Sigle J, Buser A. Platelet transfusion: basic aspects. Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143:w13885.
Schiffer CA, Bohlke K, Delaney M, et al. Platelet transfusion for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(3):283-275.
Darmon M, Clec'h C, Adrie C, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome and risk of AKI among critically ill patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(8):1347-1353.
Trifilio S, Helenowski I, Giel M, et al. Questioning the role of a neutropenic diet following hematopoetic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(9):1385-1390.
Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3199-3212.
Mhaskar R, Clark OA, Lyman G, Engel Ayer Botrel T, Morganti Paladini L, Djulbegovic B. Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):CD003039.
Kirkpatrick ID, Greenberg HM. Gastrointestinal complications in the neutropenic patient: characterization and differentiation with abdominal CT. Radiology. 2003;226(3):668-674.
Gorschlüter M, Mey U, Strehl J, et al. Neutropenic enterocolitis in adults: systematic analysis of evidence quality. Eur J Haematol. 2005;75(1):1-13.
Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(1):1-45.
Raad I, Hanna H, Maki D. Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(10):645-657.
Altuntas F, Yildiz O, Eser B, Gündoğan K, Sumerkan B, Cetin M. Perianal infection in patients with acute leukemia. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(11):1930-1933.
Howard SC, Jones DP, Pui CH. The tumor lysis syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1844-1854.
Schellongowski P, Sperr WR, Wohlfarth P, et al. Critically ill patients with cancer: chances and limitations of intensive care medicine-a narrative review. ESMO Open. 2016;1(5):e000018.
Azoulay E, Mokart D, Pène F, et al. Outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: prospective multicenter data from France and Belgium--a groupe de recherche respiratoire en réanimation onco-hématologique study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(22):2810-2818.
Benoit DD, Vandewoude KH, Decruyenaere JM, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA. Outcome and early prognostic indicators in patients with a hematologic malignancy admitted to the intensive care unit for a life-threatening complication. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(1):104-112.
Azoulay E, Schellongowski P, Darmon M, et al. The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1366-1382.
Tomblyn M, Chiller T, Einsele H, et al. Guidelines for preventing infectious complications among hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients: a global perspective. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(10):1143-1238.
Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Paul M, Leibovici L. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 1):979-995.
Green H, Paul M, Vidal L, Leibovici L. Prophylaxis of Pneumocystis pneumonia in immunocompromised non-HIV-infected patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(9):1052-1059.
Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Boyce J; World Health Organization World Alliance for Patient Safety First Global Patient Safety Challenge Core Group of Experts. The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(7):611-622.
Taur Y, Jenq RR, Perales MA, et al. The effects of intestinal tract bacterial diversity on mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2014;124(7):1174-1182.
1. Sweeney TE, Wong HR, Khatri P. Robust classification of bacterial and viral infections via integrated host gene expression diagnostics. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(346):346ra91.
2. Aslam B, Khurshid M, Arshad MI, et al. Antibiotic resistance: one health one world outlook. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:771510.
3. Maude SL, Frey N, Shaw PA, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1507-1517.
4. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):e56-e93.
5. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(1):8-32.
6. Rosa RG, Goldani LZ, dos Santos RP. Association between adherence to an antimicrobial stewardship program and mortality among hospitalised cancer patients with febrile neutropaenia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:286.
7. Banerjee R, Teng CB, Cunningham SA, et al. Randomized trial of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based blood culture identification and susceptibility testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(7):1071-1080.
8. Cooksley T, Rice T, Haji-Michael P, et al. Critical care outcomes in patients with haematological malignancy: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(Suppl 1):146.
Summary of Key Clinical Hacks
For Rapid Decision-Making at the Bedside
1. The "4 Ds" of Neutropenic Sepsis Management:
- Detect: Early recognition (fever + neutropenia = emergency)
- Draw: Blood cultures before antibiotics (but don't delay!)
- Drug: Empirical antibiotics within 60 minutes
- De-escalate: Daily reassessment and narrow spectrum when safe
2. The "Rule of Halves" for Mortality Risk:
- Hematologic malignancy: ~50% baseline ICU mortality
- Add mechanical ventilation: mortality doubles to ~75-80%
- Neutrophil recovery during ICU stay: mortality halves
3. Empirical Antibiotic Selection Shortcut:
```
STABLE + NO RESISTANCE RISK = Pip-tazo alone
UNSTABLE OR ESBL RISK = Meropenem ± aminoglycoside
ADD VANCOMYCIN ONLY IF: 
  - Shock
  - Catheter infection
  - Severe mucositis
  - Known MRSA
```
4. The "Fever Without Focus" Imaging Algorithm:
```
Day 0-3: CXR (recognizing limitations)
Day 3-5 (persistent fever): HRCT chest
Day 5-7: Consider CT abdomen/pelvis, sinuses
Serial biomarkers: β-D-glucan, galactomannan (2×/week)
```
5. Antifungal Decision Tree:
```
Persistent fever >4 days + high risk
    ↓
Check biomarkers + HRCT chest
    ↓
Positive findings → Targeted therapy
Negative but high suspicion → Empirical echinocandin
Mucor suspected → Liposomal amphotericin B 5-10 mg/kg
```
6. The "Stop Thinking" Triggers: These findings demand immediate action without delay:
- Black necrotic lesions (face, palate) = Mucormycosis → Ampho B + ENT consult
- Ecthyma gangrenosum (necrotic skin lesions) = Pseudomonas → Check coverage
- Severe RLQ pain + CT cecal thickening = Typhlitis → NPO, TPN, anaerobic coverage
- ROX index <3.85 at 12h on HFNC = Intubation imminent → Prepare
- Viridans strep bacteremia + rapid desat = ARDS → Escalate support
7. Antibiotic Duration Memory Aid:
```
"Count from ZERO after recovery"
- Zero = ANC >0.5 × 10⁹/L
- Zero fever = afebrile ×24-48h
- Minimum 7 days (with documented infection)
Both zeros achieved + minimum met = STOP
```
8. The "Three Strikes" G-CSF Rule: Consider G-CSF only if patient has ≥3 of these:
1. Profound neutropenia (ANC <0.1)
2. Septic shock
3. Pneumonia or deep infection
4. Age >65 years
5. Expected prolonged neutropenia (>10 days)
9. Catheter Management Decision:
```
ALWAYS REMOVE if:
- S. aureus (MSSA or MRSA)
- Pseudomonas aeruginosa
- Any fungus (Candida, molds)
- Tunnel infection or port pocket infection

CONSIDER SALVAGE if:
- CoNS (coagulase-negative staph)
- Catheter essential
- No hemodynamic instability
Use antibiotic lock therapy + systemic antibiotics
```
10. Goals of Care Conversation Triggers: Initiate early discussion if ≥2 present:
- ICU day 3-5 without neutrophil recovery trend
- SOFA score ≥10
- Invasive fungal infection confirmed
- Requirement for ≥3 organ supports
- Refractory shock despite optimal therapy
Teaching Points for Rounds
Questions to Ask Your Team Daily
Every morning on rounds, address these systematically:
1. "What is today's ANC and trend?"
  - Most important prognostic factor
  - Drives duration decisions
2. "Can we stop the vancomycin?"
  - If added empirically, reassess at 48-72h
  - Needed only if documented Gram-positive infection
3. "Can we stop the aminoglycoside?"
  - Synergy beneficial for 3-5 days maximum
  - Beyond that = nephrotoxicity without benefit
4. "What are we treating and for how long?"
  - Prevents antibiotic inertia
  - Forces documentation of treatment plan
5. "Is source control adequate?"
  - Catheter removed if needed?
  - Abscess drained (if neutrophil recovery permits)?
  - Surgical consultation obtained if indicated?
6. "What's our fungal risk and surveillance plan?"
  - Duration of neutropenia expected?
  - Biomarkers checked 2×/week?
  - Imaging if persistent fever?
7. "Are goals of care aligned with prognosis?"
  - Has oncology assessed disease status?
  - Family meeting needed?
  - Time-limited trial approach defined?
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
❌ DON'T:
- Wait for "significant" fever (any temp elevation counts)
- Delay antibiotics for imaging or line placement
- Perform digital rectal exam in neutropenic patients
- Continue vancomycin empirically beyond 72h without indication
- Use probiotics (risk of Lactobacillus fungemia)
- Rely on "normal" inflammatory markers to exclude infection
- Delay ICU transfer waiting for neutrophil recovery
- Use NIV for hypoxemic respiratory failure
- Forget to check drug levels (vancomycin, aminoglycosides)
- Incise and drain perianal abscess during neutropenia
✓ DO:
- Treat any fever as emergency (1-hour antibiotic rule)
- Obtain blood cultures first, but NEVER delay antibiotics
- Use HRCT chest liberally (CXR insensitive in neutropenia)
- Start extended/continuous β-lactam infusions
- Monitor for neutrophil recovery daily (best prognostic sign)
- Use HFNC early for respiratory support
- Monitor ROX index to predict HFNC failure
- Involve infectious disease and oncology early
- Have early, honest goals of care discussions
- Remove catheters for high-risk organisms (Staph aureus, Pseudomonas, Candida)
Case-Based Learning Scenarios
Case 1: The Classic Presentation
Clinical Scenario: 58-year-old man with acute myeloid leukemia, day 14 post-induction chemotherapy. Develops fever 38.8°C. ANC 0.08 × 10⁹/L. Blood pressure 95/60, HR 118, RR 22, SpO₂ 95% on room air. No localizing symptoms. Exam: mucositis grade 2, bilateral basilar crackles.
Key Actions:
1. Blood cultures ×2 (peripheral + central line) immediately
2. Empirical meropenem 2g IV (on fluoroquinolone prophylaxis = ESBL risk)
3. Add vancomycin 20 mg/kg IV (mucositis + borderline hemodynamics)
4. Fluid resuscitation 30 mL/kg
5. CXR (recognizing may be negative despite pneumonia)
6. Plan HRCT chest if fever persists >72h
Learning Point: High-risk features (hematologic malignancy, profound neutropenia, mucositis, respiratory findings) mandate aggressive empirical approach with carbapenem and vancomycin.
Case 2: The Diagnostic Dilemma
Clinical Scenario: 45-year-old woman with breast cancer, day 10 post-chemotherapy. Fever 39.1°C ×4 days despite piperacillin-tazobactam. ANC 0.02 × 10⁹/L. All cultures negative. Clinically stable. No respiratory symptoms.
Differential:
- Occult bacterial infection (resistant organism?)
- Invasive fungal infection (early aspergillosis?)
- Drug fever (antibiotic itself?)
- Disease-related fever (malignancy?)
Key Actions:
1. HRCT chest (may reveal nodules with halo sign)
2. β-D-glucan and galactomannan
3. Review prophylaxis history (on fluconazole? → Aspergillus risk)
4. Consider empirical caspofungin 70 mg IV load, then 50 mg daily
5. Continue antibacterials (don't stop if switching to antifungal alone)
Learning Point: Persistent fever despite antibiotics + profound neutropenia = high fungal risk. Pre-emptive approach with biomarkers + imaging may be superior to purely empirical antifungals.
Case 3: The Deteriorating Patient
Clinical Scenario: 62-year-old man with lymphoma, neutropenic sepsis on day 3 of meropenem + vancomycin. Blood cultures: ESBL E. coli (sensitive to meropenem). Develops worsening hypoxemia requiring HFNC 60 L/min FiO₂ 80%, SpO₂ 88%. ROX index 2.9. Chest CT: bilateral infiltrates without halo sign.
Key Actions:
1. Intubate early (ROX <3.85 predicts HFNC failure)
  - Don't delay until crash
2. Lung-protective ventilation (6 mL/kg IBW)
3. Continue meropenem (appropriately covering E. coli)
4. STOP vancomycin (not needed for E. coli)
5. Bronchoscopy with BAL (if platelets adequate)
  - Bacterial culture, fungal culture, viral PCR, PCP stain
6. Start empirical caspofungin (ARDS in neutropenic patient = consider fungal superinfection)
7. Family meeting regarding prognosis (ventilated neutropenic patient = 60-80% mortality)
Learning Point: Don't delay intubation in deteriorating neutropenic patients. ROX index guides timing. Bacterial pneumonia doesn't exclude fungal co-infection. Early goals of care discussion essential.
Case 4: The Breakthrough Infection
Clinical Scenario: 38-year-old woman with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, day 18 post-chemotherapy. On posaconazole prophylaxis and levofloxacin prophylaxis. Develops fever 38.5°C + severe left-sided facial pain + black necrotic lesion on hard palate.
Diagnosis: Mucormycosis (breakthrough on azole = suspect Mucorales)
Key Actions:
1. Immediate ENT consultation (surgical debridement CRITICAL)
2. Liposomal amphotericin B 10 mg/kg IV daily (high dose for Mucor)
3. Stop posaconazole (ineffective against Mucor)
4. MRI brain/sinuses (extent of invasion)
5. Consider adding isavuconazole 200 mg IV q8h ×6, then daily (combination therapy)
6. Optimize diabetes control if diabetic (Mucor thrives in hyperglycemia/acidosis)
7. Urgent surgical debridement within 24 hours
Learning Point: Black necrotic lesions in neutropenic patient = Mucormycosis until proven otherwise. This is a surgical emergency. Medical therapy alone is insufficient. Breakthrough on azole prophylaxis changes differential (think intrinsically resistant organisms).
Case 5: The Recovery Phase
Clinical Scenario: 55-year-old man with AML, neutropenic sepsis treated with meropenem ×10 days. Blood cultures: Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL, sensitive to meropenem). Now afebrile ×48h, clinically improved. Today's ANC 0.6 × 10⁹/L (was 0.1 five days ago).
Decision Point: Can we stop antibiotics?
Assessment: ✓ ANC recovered (>0.5) ✓ Afebrile >48h ✓ Documented infection treated ≥10 days ✓ Clinically stable ✓ Source controlled
Action: STOP meropenem
Learning Point: Don't continue antibiotics indefinitely "just to be safe." Once criteria met (ANC recovery + afebrile + minimum duration), stopping is appropriate. This is antimicrobial stewardship in action.
Practical Tips for Fellows and Residents
On Admission
Your initial note should document:
- Exact ANC and trend (not just "neutropenic")
- Duration of neutropenia (current and expected)
- Underlying malignancy type
- Recent chemotherapy (agent, date)
- Antimicrobial prophylaxis status
- Prior infections and organisms
- MASCC score (even though ICU patient = high risk by definition)
- SOFA score
- Time of fever recognition → time of antibiotic administration
- Goals of care status
Daily Progress Note Structure
Use this framework:
```
NEUTROPENIC SEPSIS - DAY X

NEUTROPHIL STATUS:
- ANC today: ___ (trend: up/down/stable)
- Expected recovery: ___ days

INFECTION STATUS:
- Fever curve: [trending down/persistent/new spike]
- Cultures: [organism/sensitivities/pending]
- Antibiotics: Day X of [agent] - INDICATION: [documented organism vs empirical]
- Plan: [continue/narrow/escalate] because ___

SOURCE CONTROL:
- Catheter status: [in/removed - date]
- Surgical issues: [none/consulted/procedure done]

FUNGAL RISK:
- Duration neutropenia: ___ days
- Biomarkers: β-D-glucan ___, galactomannan ___
- Imaging: [CXR/HRCT] findings ___
- Antifungal: [none/prophylaxis/empirical/targeted]

ORGAN SUPPORT:
- Vasopressors: [none/dose/trend]
- Respiratory: [room air/O2/HFNC/MV]
- Renal: [baseline/AKI/CRRT]
- SOFA score today: ___

GOALS OF CARE:
- Status: [full code/DNR/comfort measures]
- Recent discussions: [dates, participants]
```
Presenting on Rounds
Concise daily summary: "This is hospital day X, neutropenic day Y, ICU day Z for [patient] with [malignancy] who developed neutropenic sepsis. ANC today is [value, trending up/down]. Currently on day X of [antibiotics] for [documented organism vs empirical]. [Improving/stable/deteriorating] with SOFA score [value]. Plan today: [key decisions]."
Final Pearls for the Practicing Intensivist
1. Speed saves lives: The "golden hour" applies to neutropenic sepsis. Every hour of antibiotic delay increases mortality by 10-20%.
2. Neutrophil recovery trumps all: The best "therapy" is bridging the patient to ANC >0.5. All other interventions are supportive measures.
3. Trust the microbiology lab, not your eyes: Absence of pus, infiltrate, or pyuria doesn't exclude serious infection. Neutropenic patients can't mount inflammatory responses.
4. Less is more (after stabilization): Start broad, but de-escalate aggressively once culture data available and patient stable. Every unnecessary antibiotic day increases resistance, C. diff, and toxicity.
5. Don't forget the surgeon: Mucormycosis, perianal abscess, typhlitis, and some catheter infections need surgical intervention. Medical therapy alone may fail.
6. High-flow oxygen before intubation: HFNC has transformed outcomes in hypoxemic respiratory failure. Use it early and liberally. Monitor ROX index to time intubation before crash.
7. The catheter is not your friend: Low threshold for removal with high-risk organisms. Attempting salvage with S. aureus or Candida often fails and delays appropriate therapy.
8. Breakthrough infections change the rules: If infection occurs despite prophylaxis, assume resistance to that class. Fluconazole prophylaxis → think Aspergillus. Posaconazole → think Mucor.
9. Early goals of care discussions are compassionate: Don't wait until day 10 on maximal support to discuss prognosis. By ICU day 3-5, trajectories become clear. Have the conversation early.
10. Collaborate intensively: Neutropenic sepsis is the ultimate team sport. Oncology knows the malignancy prognosis. Infectious disease knows the bugs. You bring the critical care expertise. Together, you optimize outcomes.
Conclusion
Neutropenic sepsis management in the ICU requires a synthesis of infectious disease principles, critical care expertise, and oncologic knowledge. The intensivist must act decisively with empirical therapy while thinking strategically about de-escalation, recognize atypical presentations masked by absent inflammatory responses, and balance aggressive life support against realistic prognostication.
Success hinges on:
- Rapid recognition and treatment (the 1-hour rule)
- Appropriate empirical coverage (based on individual risk factors)
- Daily reassessment and antimicrobial stewardship
- Early detection of fungal infections (biomarkers, imaging)
- Bridging to neutrophil recovery (the ultimate goal)
- Honest communication (early goals of care alignment)
As immunotherapies and targeted cancer treatments evolve, the critical care physician must remain adaptable while adhering to core principles. The landscape of neutropenic sepsis continues to shift with antimicrobial resistance, novel pathogens, and new treatment paradigms. Ongoing education, protocol refinement, and multidisciplinary collaboration remain essential to improving outcomes for these vulnerable patients.
The patient with neutropenic sepsis sits at the intersection of three high-mortality conditions: septic shock, immunosuppression, and critical illness. Our role is not to choose between aggressive intervention and palliation, but to provide both—intensive support when appropriate and compassionate transitions when necessary. The art lies in discerning which patient, at which time, will benefit from which approach.
Acknowledgments: This review synthesizes evidence from international guidelines, landmark trials, and clinical experience. The author acknowledges the multidisciplinary teams—oncologists, infectious disease specialists, pharmacists, nurses, and respiratory therapists—who make optimal neutropenic sepsis care possible.
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

This comprehensive review is designed for critical care physicians, infectious disease specialists, and oncologists managing neutropenic sepsis in the intensive care unit. The practical approach, evidence-based recommendations, and clinical pearls aim to translate complex literature into bedside decision-making that improves patient outcomes.

Thursday, October 16, 2025