Skip to content

Advertisement

Journal of Intensive Care

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Contribution to diagnosis and treatment of bone marrow aspirate results in critically ill patients undergoing bone marrow aspiration: a retrospective study of 193 consecutive patients

  • Laure Calvet1Email author,
  • Bruno Pereira2,
  • Anne-Françoise Sapin3,
  • Gabrielle Mareynat3,
  • Alexandre Lautrette1, 4 and
  • Bertrand Souweine1, 4
Journal of Intensive Care20175:67

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-017-0263-7

Received: 25 August 2017

Accepted: 16 November 2017

Published: 4 December 2017

Abstract

Background

The purpose of the work was to assess the contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment (CDT) of bone marrow aspiration (BMA) in the critically ill patient.

Methods

The retrospective study included 193 patients. On the basis of BMA findings, contribution to diagnosis was defined by one of four previously unestablished diagnoses (maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, hematological malignancy, marrow infiltration with cancer cells) and to treatment as the initiation or withdrawal of a specific treatment including the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST).

Results

A CDT of BMA was observed in 40/193 patients (20.7%). BMA contributed to diagnosis in 37 cases (granulocyte precursor maturation arrest, N = 10; hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, N = 12; hematological malignancy, N = 15) and to treatment in 14, including three DFLSTs. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with a CDT were hematological malignancy, cancer or non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission, indication for BMA excluding isolated thrombocytopenia, higher pre-BMA HScore (calculated prior to BMA), and higher SOFA score with or without platelet-count SOFA subscore. In the 160 patients without hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission, non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission, indication for BMA excluding isolated thrombocytopenia, higher pre-BMA HScore, and higher SOFA score calculated with or without platelet-count SOFA subscore were independently associated with a CDT of BMA.

Conclusion

BMA can have a significant CDT in ICU patients with or without a known hematological malignancy or cancer on admission. An HScore calculated before BMA can be a valuable tool for predicting a CDT of BMA.

Keywords

Bone marrowHemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosisThrombocytopeniaCritically ill patient

Background

Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is mainly performed for cytomorphological examination of bone marrow cells, but also to proceed to other analyses such as immunophenotypic, flow cytometry, cytogenetic, molecular genetic, and microbiological tests. BMA is an important medical procedure for the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of patients with hematological diseases and for investigating various non-hematological conditions including storage diseases, inborn errors of metabolism, metastatic cancer, and infection that has spread to the bone marrow.

BMA is easy to perform, and its examination often provides a reliable diagnosis within a matter of hours. However, it is invasive and painful requiring the administration of local anesthesia in patients not receiving general anesthetic sedation. Adverse events following BMA are rare but may result in severe complications [1, 2]. The indications for BMA are established in routine hematology practice [3].

Few reports have attempted to measure the contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment (CDT) of BMA in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and most available data come from cohort studies of subgroups of patients with thrombocytopenia [46] or hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) [79]. In ICU patients, BMA can be indicated for numerous conditions: as part of the follow-up of a malignancy previously known upon admission, for diagnostic purposes, and to guide treatment in patients with unexplained clinical features or laboratory or radiologic abnormalities such as lymphadenopathy, hepato-splenomegaly, osteolytic bone lesions, hypercalcemia, monoclonal proteins, cytopenia, cytosis, and the presence of immature or morphologically atypical cells in the peripheral blood. Dealing with these factors in the ICU is particularly difficult since these medical circumstances often result from multiple mechanisms caused by the severity of the acute illness, the underlying conditions, and their respective treatments. Because of the lack of information on BMA findings in the critically ill, the indications for the procedure are not standardized in the ICU and are highly dependent on local hospital practice and available technical expertise.

The aim of this retrospective study was therefore to assess the results of BMA performed in ICU patients and to determine the CDT of BMA in this subpopulation.

Methods

Setting and population

This retrospective study was carried out in the 10-bed medical ICU of the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand (France). All consecutive adult patients (age > 18 years) who underwent a BMA between 1 January 2010 and 31 October 2014 were screened. They were identified by electronic search in the database of the hematology department. Patients with no adequate bone marrow specimen because BMA had resulted in a dry tap or very dilute sample were excluded from the study. For patients with multiple ICU admissions over the study period, only the first ICU stay with a BMA yielding an adequate specimen was included in the analysis. For patients who had multiple adequate BMA specimens during the same ICU stay, only the first adequate specimen was taken into account in the analysis. At our institution, senior hematologists and intensivists are available 24 h a day 7 days a week and work together to indicate BMA. BMA is ordered to make a specific diagnosis, guide specific treatment, withhold potentially ineffective and/or harmful treatment, or provide important prognostic information. The data collected from the medical records are given in Additional file 1 [1012] and the procedure of BMA in Additional file 2. The HScore was calculated for each patient before (pre-BMA HScore) and after (HScore) BMA results. The HScore is the first validated score to estimate individual risk of HLH. It was calculated from variables defined by a web-based Delphi study. The weight of each of the criteria was established by logistic regression modeling. The HScore is based on a set of nine weighted clinical, biological, and cytologic criteria. The minimum and maximum values of the pre-BMA HScore (before BMA results) are 0 and 302 points, respectively. The minimum and maximum values of the HScore are 0 and 337 points, respectively. The best diagnostic threshold of the HScore for HLH was 169 with a probability of HLH of 52%, corresponding to a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 86%, and an accurate classification of 90% of the patients [13].

Hematologists with knowledge of all clinical, radiologic, and laboratory tests analyze BMA samples. This study was approved by our institutional review board (Institutional review Board of Clermont-Ferrand South-East 6 – IRB00008526 number 2016/CE51) in accordance with French regulations. No consent was needed from patients.

Definitions

The indications for BMA were divided into agranulocytosis, isolated thrombocytopenia, and suspicion of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), of hematological malignancy, and of cancer that had spread to the bone marrow. Agranulocytosis was considered as the indication for BMA when it was not associated with another indication. Isolated thrombocytopenia was considered as the indication for BMA when thrombocytopenia was the only indication for BMA. An adjudication committee (LC and BS) determined whether BMA made a CDT. Contribution to diagnosis was defined as a BMA result pointing to one of the following previously unestablished diagnoses: maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors, HLH as defined by HScore calculation threshold ≥ 169 [13], hematological malignancy, and infiltration with cancer cells. Contribution to therapy was defined as the initiation or discontinuation of a specific therapy strategy based on BMA findings, and the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment (DFLST). Pre-BMA HScore was defined as HScore calculated with no points assigned for the variable “hemophagocytosis features on bone marrow aspirate.” Post-BMA complications were bleeding or infection at the site of aspiration and other severe adverse events related to sternal aspiration such as manubrial separation and cardiac tamponade.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with Stata software (version 13, StataCorp, TX). All tests were performed for a two-tailed type I error at 0.05. Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]. CDT was expressed in percentages (number of patients with a BMA yielding a CDT divided by number of patients in the study). Between-group comparisons were performed by chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests and Student’s t test or Mann-Whitney test if t test conditions were not met. Relationships between quantitative parameters were studied by Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to predict CDT, with covariables determined according to univariate results and their clinical relevance. The results were expressed as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. The diagnostic accuracy of the pre-BMA HScore in predicting the CDT of BMA was evaluated with the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve. The optimal threshold was determined according to standard indices (Liu, Youden, and efficiency). A sensitivity analysis was performed on the subpopulation.

Results

Characteristics of patients and CDT of BMA

During the study period, 193 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). The annual rate of ICU patients admitted with an adequate BMA did not differ over time (p = 0.39; Additional file 3). The characteristics of the study population are given in Table 1. The results of blood count and coagulation tests on the day of BMA are given in Additional file 4. The indications for, and pathological findings of, BMA are shown in Fig. 2 [14, 15]. BMA had a CDT in 40 patients (20.7%). It contributed to diagnosis in 37 patients and to treatment in 14 (Table 2). In the 10 patients with maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors, exposure to potentially hematotoxic agents within the preceding 7 days was identified in all cases, but corresponded to an immunosuppressive treatment in only one case (Additional file 5). Of the 12 patients with HLH, 7 were severely immunocompromised. Infection was the precipitating factors in 10 patients including herpesviridae infection in 5.
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the study. BMA, bone marrow aspiration; CD, contribution to diagnosis, CDT, contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment; CT, contribution to treatment; ICU, intensive care unit

Table 1

Characteristics of the study population

Patients

n = 193

Baseline characteristics

 

 Age (years)a

66 ± 14

 Gender ratio (male/female)

1.5

 Body mass indexa

26 ± 7

 SOFA on ICU admissionb

7 [5–11]

 SAPS II on ICU admissionb

60 [40–72]

 McCabe score 2c,d

26 (13)

 Hematological malignancy or cancer previously diagnosedc

33 (17)

 Nonmalignant hematological abnormality previously diagnosedc,e

14 (7)

 Reason for ICU admissionc

 

 Acute respiratory failure

67 (35)

 Severe sepsis/septic shock

50 (26)

 Acute renal failure and metabolic disorder

28 (14)

 Coma

19 (10)

 Otherf

29 (15)

Vitamin B12 deficiencyc,g,h

2 (2)

Vitamin B9 deficiencyc,g,i

25 (36)

Days from admission to biopsy (days)b

5 [3–8]

Characteristics on the day of BMA

 

 BMA at the sternal sitec

155 (80)

 BMA at the iliac crest site

38 (20)

 Sepsiscj

124 (64)

 Adenopathyc,j

14 (7)

 Splenomegalyc

7 (4)

 Monoclonal gammapathyc

18 (9)

 Anticoagulant agentc,k

129 (67)

 Prophylactic anticoagulationc

87 (45)

 Therapeutic anticoagulationc

42 (22)

 Antiplatelet agentc

31 (16)

 Proton-pump inhibitor agentc

40 (21)

 Anti-infectious agent with potential hematoxcicityc

146 (76)

 Other agent with potential hematoxcicityc

76 (39)

 Pre-BMA HScore

62 [24–96]

 SOFAc

8 [5–11]

 Invasive ventilationc

52 (27)

 Vasopressorsc

90 (47)

 Renal replacement therapy

31 (16)

ICU length of stayb

14 [7–29]

ICU mortalityc

59 (31)

Hospital mortalityc

78 (40)

ICU intensive care unit; PreBMA HScore, SAPS II simplified acute physiology score, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score

aMean ± SD

bMedian [interquartile range]

cNumber (percentage)

dFatal outcome within 12 months

eThrombocytopenia (n = 5), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (n = 3), polycythemia (n = 2), auto-immune cytopenia (n = 4)

fCardiac arrest (N = 9), other shock (N = 8), thrombotic microangiopathy (N = 7), post-surgery surveillance (N = 5)

gBlood samples drawn between admission and BMA

hEighty-two missing data

iOne hundred twenty-four missing data

jIn 48 patients, sepsis was unresolved since ICU admission

kUnfractionated heparin (N = 44), low-molecular-weight heparin (N = 78), danaparoid (N = 7)

Fig. 2

Indications for bone marrow aspiration and pathological: Megakaryocyte depletion, one or fewer megakaryocytes per 5 to 10 low-power fields on bone marrow examination [15] Other, suspicion of tuberculosis (N=5), undetermined (N=5); Reactive bone marrow changes, non-specific bone marrow modifications associated with acute inflammation including hypercellularity, an increased myeloid-to-erythroid ratio with a large number of myeloid precursors and mature segmented neutrophils, with or without megakaryocyte hyperplasia, monocytosis and a slight increase in normal plasmocytes [14]; Vitamin B12/folate deficiency -like features, cytological signs classically associated with vitamin B12/folate deficiency including hypersegmented neutrophil granulocytes, giant metamyelocytes, erythroid asynchronism maturation

Table 2

Contribution of bone marrow aspiration to diagnosis and treatment

Patient

Indication

Diagnostic contribution, N = 37

Therapeutic contribution, N = 14

1

b

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

2 (a)

b

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

No

3 (a)

c

Acute transformation of CMML

DFLST

4

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

No

5 (a)

c

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

No

6

c

No (normal marrow)

Addition of erythropoietin

7

c

Marginal zone lymphoma

No

8 (a)

c

No (normal marrow)

Addition of dasatinib

9 (a)

e

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

Discontinuation of TMP/SMX

10

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

11

c

Lymphocytic lymphoma

No

12

e

No (presence of phagocytic histiocytes)

Addition of etoposide

13

e

Myelodysplastic syndrome

No

14

b

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

15

c

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Addition of COP (g)

16

c

Marginal zone lymphoma

No

17

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

No

18 (a)

c

Acute monocytic leukemia

DFLST

19

c

Acute myeloid leukemia

DFLST

20

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

21

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

22

c

Myelodysplastic syndrome

No

23 (a)

c

Relapsed multiple myeloma

No

24

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

25

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

Discontinuation of tacrolimus

26

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

27 (a)

c

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

28

c

Multiple myeloma

No

29

e

Myelodysplastic syndrome

No

30

e

Myelodysplastic syndrome

No

31

b

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

32

f

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Addition of COP (g)

33 (a)

c

Myelodysplastic syndrome

No

34

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

Addition of etoposide

35 (a)

c

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

36

e

Hemophagocytic syndrome

No

37

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

Addition of lenogastrim

38

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

Discontinuation of amoxicillin

39

d

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

Addition of lenogastrim

40 (a)

c

Maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors

No

In patients 6, 8, and 12, BMA did not contribute to diagnosis but contributed to treatment

a, hematological malignancy or cancer already known upon ICU admission; b, suspicion of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; c, suspicion of hematological malignancy; d, agranulocytosis; e, thrombocytopenia; f, suspected cancer that has spread to the bone marrow; g, ultimately followed by DFLST; CMML, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; COP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone; DFLST, decision to forego life-sustaining treatment; TMP/SMX, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole

In the 14 patients with a BMA contributing to treatment, BMA findings resulted in initiation of treatment in 8, discontinuation in 3, and a DFLST in the other 3, established on the basis of the reported diagnosis (acute myeloid leukemia) against a background of worsening critical state (Table 2). No post-BMA complications were observed.

Factors associated with BMA yielding a CDT

In the overall population, the factors associated with a CDT of BMA in univariate analysis are given in Additional file 6. In multivariate analysis, the factors significantly associated with a CDT of BMA were a known diagnosis on ICU admission of either cancer or hematological malignancy or non-malignant hematological abnormality; indication for BMA excluding isolated thrombocytopenia; higher pre-BMA HScore; and higher SOFA score calculated with or without platelet subscore on the day of BMA (Table 3). The AUC-ROC curve of pre-BMA HScore that predicted the CDT of BMA was 0.76 (95% confidence interval = 0.66–0.85). Youden’s Index was maximal for a threshold of 76 with a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 73%. In a sensitive analysis performed in the subpopulation of 181 patients without HLH, a higher pre-BMA HScore was independently associated with a CDT of BMA (Additional file 7). CDT was more often observed in patients with hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission than in patients with no hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission (29/160 (18%) vs 11/33 (33%), p = 0.05).
Table 3

Multivariable analysis of factors associated with a CDT of BMA in the overall population (N = 193)

Variable

Odds ratio

95% confidence interval

P value

First model

 Hematological malignancy, cancer, or non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission

3.70

[1.44–9.33]

0.007

 Indication of BMA excluding isolated TPa,b

3.69

[1.46–9.30]

0.006

 SOFA scorec

1.15

[1.04–1.28]

0.006

 Pre-BMA HScorec,d

1.03

[1.02–1.04]

< 0.001

Second model

 Hematological malignancy, cancer, or non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission

3.21

[1.78–8.76]

0.023

 Indication of BMA excluding isolated TPa,b

4.53

[1.66–12.38]

0.003

 SOFA—platelet-count SOFA subscorec

1.15

[1.03–1.29]

0.013

 Pre-BMA HScorec,d

1.03

[1.02–1.04]

< 0.001

 Platelet count SOFA subscore 0 versus other groupsc

2.38

[0.76-7.50]

0.138

BMA bone marrow aspiration, CDT contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment, Hscore reactive hemophagocytic syndrome diagnostic score, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment, TP thrombocytopenia

aThrombocytopenia may be present or absent in these patients

bIsolated thrombocytopenia, i.e., thrombocytopenia was the only indication for BMA

cPer point

dCalculated with no points assigned for the cytological variable

In the 160 patients without hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission, the factors associated with a CDT of BMA in univariate analysis are given in Additional file 8. In multivariate analysis, the factors significantly associated with a CDT of BMA were as follows: a non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission, indication of BMA excluding isolated thrombocytopenia, higher pre-BMA Hscore, and higher SOFA score calculated with or without platelet-count SOFA subscore on the day of BMA (Table 4). The AUC-ROC curve of pre-BMA HScore that predicted the CDT of BMA was 0.75 (95% confidence interval = 0.64–0.86). Youden’s Index was maximal for a threshold of 76 with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 74%.
Table 4

Multivariable analysis of factors associated with a CDT of BMA in the subpopulation with no hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission (N = 160)

Variable

Odds ratio

95% confidence interval

P value

First model

 Non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission

7.75

[1.77–34.02]

0.007

 Indication of BMA excluding isolated TPa,b

3.32

[1.16–9.51]

0.025

 SOFA scorec

1.19

[1.06–1.34]

0.003

 Pre-BMA HScorec,d

1.03

[1.01–1.04]

< 0.001

Second model

 Non-malignant hematological abnormality known on admission

6.76

[1.51–30.38]

0.013

 Indication of BMA excluding isolated TPa,b

3.82

[1.19–12.24]

0.024

 SOFA—platelet-count SOFA subscorec

1.19

[1.04–1.35]

0.009

 Pre-BMA HScorec,d

1.03

[1.01–1.04]

< 0.001

 Platelet count SOFA subscore 0 versus other groups

2.14

[0.60–7.62]

0.239

BMA bone marrow aspiration, CDT contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment, Hscore reactive hemophagocytic syndrome diagnostic score, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment, TP thrombocytopenia

aThrombocytopenia may be present or absent in these patients

bIsolated thrombocytopenia, i.e., thrombocytopenia was the only indication for BMA

cPer point

dCalculated with no points assigned for the cytological variable

Discussion

This study shows that in 21% of our ICU patients undergoing BMA, the results of the examination had a significant impact on diagnosis and management. We found a higher CDT in patients with higher values of SOFA scores calculated with or without platelet count subscore, in patients with higher values of pre-BMA HScore, and in patients with indication for BMA not restricted to isolated thrombocytopenia. These results were observed in our study population in patients both with and without hematological malignancy or cancer known on ICU admission.

Data on BMA in ICU patients are scant, and studies on this topic have focused on specific subpopulations, mostly of patients with thrombocytopenia [46] or with HLH [79]. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to report the CDT of bone marrow examination in an overall adult ICU population undergoing BMA for any reason.

The etiologies of thrombocytopenia in the ICU setting are classically multifactorial and mainly due to increased peripheral platelet destruction [1618]. In a multicenter study involving 301 consecutive thrombocytopenic ICU patients, BMA findings yielded a previous unestablished diagnosis in 22% of patients and prompted a change in therapeutic management in 11% [6]. In our study, thrombocytopenia was present at the time of BMA in 128 patients and yielded a contribution to diagnosis in 32 (25%) and to treatment in 10 (8%). We found a higher CDT in patients undergoing BMA for indications excluding isolated thrombocytopenia. This suggests that although cases of thrombocytopenia are currently due to multiple etiologies in the ICU setting, BMA should not be systematically performed on the basis of a single low platelet count. The decision to carry out a BMA in thrombocytopenic critically ill patients should include the presence of other features such as a detailed clinical history, physical examination, review of all medications, and results of other diagnostic procedures including blood test coagulation, blood cell counts, and peripheral blood smear examination.

Reactive HLH is a life threatening disorder. Its course may be improved by early etoposide administration. Several studies have reported the results of BMA in adult ICU patients with reactive HLH but used different definitions, which makes it difficult to compare their findings [79]. In our study, HLH was defined by the recently developed HScore [13], which includes variables defined by a web-based Delphi study [19], with the weight of each of the criteria established by logistic regression modeling.

The presence of hemophagocytosis on BMA specimens is not pathognomonic of HLH [8, 13] and is found, for instance, in severely ill patients with sepsis or after blood transfusion but with no proven HLH [79, 13, 20, 21]. In our study, hemophagocytosis on BMA examination was observed in 56 (29%) patients but corresponded to HLH in only 12. In addition, hemophagocytic activity may be absent during HLH particularly at the initial phases [22]. In a retrospective study performed in a medical ICU with HLH diagnosed according to criteria established by the International Histiocyte Society revised in 2004 [23], histological evidence of hemophagocytosis was not observed in 12/56 patients (22%) with HLH [8]. In a recent study performed in 98 adult ICU patients with BMA requested for suspicion of HLH and HLH diagnosed on an HScore threshold value higher than 169, hemophagocytosis on BMA examination was observed in 57/71 (83%) patients with HLH and in 21/27 (84%) without [9]. In our study, 12 patients had HLH defined by an HScore threshold value higher than 169, and hemophagocytosis on BMA examination was observed in all 12 cases. Infection was the predominant precipitating factor, as classically reported [22]. We found that a higher pre-BMA score was associated with a CDT of BMA even in our subpopulation without HLH. This likely reflects the inclusion in the HScore of clinical and laboratory manifestations such as known underlying immunosuppression, fever, organomegaly (splenomegaly, hepatomegaly), and cytopenias, which were also commonly associated with diagnoses other than HLH defining a CDT of BMA in our study (maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors, hematological malignancy, and marrow infiltration with cancer cells). Thus, our study suggests that a single score, the HScore calculated either before BMA (pre-BMA HScore) or after, could be a useful means of both predicting a CDT of BMA and establishing HLH diagnosis.

The incidence of BMA-related mechanical complications reported in the literature is lower than 0.4% [2, 6, 24, 25]. In our study, we observed no BMA procedure-related complications, which is in agreement with the results of a previous report [6]. We are aware that our study has several limitations. First, it was retrospective. Second, it involved only ICU patients undergoing BMA, and hence, the CDT of BMA in a general ICU population cannot be extrapolated from our results. Third, it was a single-center study performed in a medical ICU, and whether the results can be extrapolated to other ICUs remains questionable. Fourth, the indications for BMA were not pre-defined, although the year-on-year rates of patients who had a BMA did not differ over the period studied. Fifth, the definition of “contribution to diagnosis” did not account for factors such as the mechanism of thrombocytopenia or signs suggesting vitamin deficiency. The mechanism of thrombocytopenia was intentionally ruled out of the definition as all of the bone marrow examinations ordered to screen thrombocytopenia would have necessarily been diagnosis-contributive in some way given the “yes/no” output (absence or presence of megakaryocyte depletion). Likewise, the presence on bone marrow examination of signs pointing to vitamin B9 or B12 deficiency was not factored into the definition of contribution to diagnosis as signs like these are frequently found on ICU-patient aspirates yet only rarely associated with an actual deficit as evidenced in biological screening assays [6, 26]. Sixth, the definition of contribution to diagnosis did not include ongoing treatment when BMA yielded no abnormal findings. Normal BMA findings in a cytopenic patient can serve to rule out any potential myelotoxicity from certain drug therapies and thus allow them to continue. As our study was retrospective, we were unable to run this type of analysis. The latter two points may mean that we underestimated the CDT of the bone marrow examination here. In the intensive care setting, BMA is useful in cases of unexplained cytopenia, suspected HLH, suspected cancer that has spread to the bone marrow, or suspected hematological malignancy. The decision to perform a BMA in the ICU should be taken by a multidisciplinary team approach including intensivists and hematologists, and it requires the integration of various factors including clinical history, physical examination, peripheral blood film analysis, and other diagnostic procedure results, as recommended in other medical units [27]. In these conditions, BMA in the intensive care setting can yield the diagnosis of maturation arrest of granulocyte precursors, HLH or hematological malignancy, and bone marrow infiltration with cancer cells and also help in the decision to initiate or discontinue a specific therapy strategy. In some cases such as lymphomas, myeloproliferative neoplasms, or metastatic malignancies, BMA cannot always establish the diagnosis and should then be combined with a trephine biopsy.

Conclusion

BMA can be a valuable tool in critical care management, in patients both with and without hematological malignancy or cancer known on admission. The HScore may help to better define the population liable to benefit from BMA. Multicenter cohort studies should be performed to confirm these results and to determine the usefulness of BMA in an overall ICU population.

Abbreviations

AUC-ROC: 

Area under the receiver-operating characteristic

BMA: 

Bone marrow aspiration

CDT: 

Contribution to diagnosis and/or treatment

DFLST: 

Decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment

HLH: 

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

SOFA: 

Sequential organ failure assessment

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jeffrey Watts for his help in preparing the manuscript.

Funding

No source of funding was received for the research.

Availability of data and materials

All data used for the analysis can be obtained from the authors.

Authors’ contributions

LC and BS are the guarantor of the paper and takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to the published article. BP contributed to statistical analysis and to the interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. AFS contributed to BMA samples analysis and to the interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. GM contributed BMA samples analysis and to the interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. AL contributed to the interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. BS contributed to the interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by our institutional review board (Institutional review board of Clermont-Ferrand South-East 6 – IRB00008526 number 2016/CE51) in accordance with French regulations. No consent was needed from patients.

Consent for publication

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This study was approved by our institutional review board (Institutional review board of Clermont-Ferrand South-East 6 – IRB00008526 number 2016/CE51) in accordance with French regulations. No consent was needed from patients.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Gabriel Montpied, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand
(2)
Département de biostatistique, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand
(3)
Laboratoire d’hématologie, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand
(4)
Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LMGE

References

  1. Riley RS, Hogan TF, Pavot DR, et al. A pathologist’s perspective on bone marrow aspiration and biopsy: I. Performing a bone marrow examination. J Clin Lab Anal. 2004;18(2):70–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain BJ. Morbidity associated with bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy—a review of UK data for 2004. Haematologica. 2006;91(9):1293–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lee S-H, Erber WN, Porwit A, Tomonaga M, Peterson LC. International Council for Standardization In Hematology. ICSH guidelines for the standardization of bone marrow specimens and reports. Int J Lab Hematol. 2008;30(5):349–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Stéphan F, Hollande J, Richard O, Cheffi A, Maier-Redelsperger M, Flahault A. Thrombocytopenia in a surgical ICU. Chest. 1999;115(5):1363–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baughman RP, Lower EE, Flessa HC, Tollerud DJ. Thrombocytopenia in the intensive care unit. Chest. 1993;104(4):1243–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Thiolliere F, Serre-Sapin AF, Reignier J, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of thrombocytopenic patients in the intensive care unit: results of a prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1460–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. François B, Trimoreau F, Vignon P, Fixe P, Praloran V, Gastinne H. Thrombocytopenia in the sepsis syndrome: role of hemophagocytosis and macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Am J Med. 1997;103(2):114–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buyse S, Teixeira L, Galicier L, et al. Critical care management of patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(10):1695–702.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Barba T, Maucort-Boulch D, Iwaz J, et al. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in intensive care unit: a 71-case strobe-compliant retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(51):e2318.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. McCABE WR. Gram-negative bacteremia: I. Etiology and ecology. Arch Intern Med. 1962;110(6):847.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993;270(24):2957–2963.Google Scholar
  13. Fardet L, Galicier L, Lambotte O, et al. Development and validation of the HScore, a score for the diagnosis of reactive hemophagocytic syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol Hoboken NJ. 2014;66(9):2613–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Diebold J, Molina T, Camilleri-Broët S, Le Tourneau A, Audouin J. Bone marrow manifestations of infections and systemic diseases observed in bone marrow trephine biopsy review. Histopathology. 2000;37(3):199–211.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Louwes H, Zeinali Lathori OA, Vellenga E, de Wolf JT. Platelet kinetic studies in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Am J Med. 1999;106(4):430–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Vanderschueren S, De Weerdt A, Malbrain M, et al. Thrombocytopenia and prognosis in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(6):1871–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Van der Linden T, Souweine B, Dupic L, Soufir L, Meyer P. Management of thrombocytopenia in the ICU (pregnancy excluded). Ann Intensive Care. 2012;2(1):42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Pène F, Benoit DD. Thrombocytopenia in the critically ill: considering pathophysiology rather than looking for a magic threshold. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(9):1656–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hejblum G, Lambotte O, Galicier L, et al. A web-based delphi study for eliciting helpful criteria in the positive diagnosis of hemophagocytic syndrome in adult patients. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94024.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Suster S, Hilsenbeck S, Rywlin AM. Reactive histiocytic hyperplasia with hemophagocytosis in hematopoietic organs: a reevaluation of the benign hemophagocytic proliferations. Hum Pathol. 1988;19(6):705–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Strauss R, Wehler M, Mehler K, Kreutzer D, Koebnick C, Hahn EG. Thrombocytopenia in patients in the medical intensive care unit: bleeding prevalence, transfusion requirements, and outcome. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(8):1765–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zerón P, López-Guillermo A, Khamashta MA, Bosch X. Adult haemophagocytic syndrome. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9927):1503–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Henter J-I, Horne A, Aricó M, et al. HLH-2004: diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48(2):124–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Loctin A, Bailly F, Laroche D, Tavernier C, Maillefert J-F, Ornetti P. Clinical interest of bone marrow aspiration in rheumatology: a practice-based observational study of 257 bone marrow aspirations. Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32(1):115–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bain BJ. Bone marrow biopsy morbidity and mortality. Br J Haematol. 2003;121(6):949–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wickramasinghe SN. Diagnosis of megaloblastic anaemias. Blood Rev. 2006;20(6):299–318.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bain BJ, Bailey K. Pitfalls in obtaining and interpreting bone marrow aspirates: to err is human. J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(5):373–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement