Development of an Optimized Protocol for Cochlear Implant Care to Increase Cochlear Implant Access.
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
medline:
18
8
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
entrez:
8
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop an evidence-based protocol for audiology-based, cochlear implant (CI) programming in the first year after activation. Retrospective case review. CI program at a tertiary medical center. One-hundred seventy-one patients (178 ears; mean age at implantation, 62.3 yr; 44.4% female) implanted between 2016 and 2021 with postlingual onset of deafness and no history of CI revision surgery. Patients included here had confirmed CI programming optimization based on CI-aided thresholds in the 20- to 30-dB-HL range as well as upper stimulation levels guided by electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds. Consonant-nucleus-consonant monosyllabic word recognition scores in the CI-alone and bilateral best-aided conditions at five time points: preoperative evaluation, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after activation. For both the CI-alone and bilateral best-aided conditions, consonant-nucleus-consonant word recognition significantly improved from preoperative evaluation to all postactivation time points. For the CI-alone condition, no significant differences were observed between 3 and 6 months, or from 6 to 12 months after activation. In contrast, for the bilateral best-aided condition, significant differences were observed between 1 and 3 months, and 3 and 6 months, but no difference in scores between 6 and 12 months. Based on the current data set and associated analyses, CI centers programming adult patients could eliminate either the 3- or 6-month visit from their clinical follow-up schedule if patient mapping of lower and upper stimulation levels is validated via CI-aided audiometric thresholds and electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds, respectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37550889
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003968
pii: 00129492-990000000-00370
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e635-e640Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000445
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Références
Sladen DP, Gifford RH, Haynes D, et al. Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2368–74.
Perkins E, Dietrich MS, Manzoor N, et al. Further evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy criteria. Otol Neurotol 2021;42:815–23.
Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear 2018;22:2331216518755288.
Patro A, Lindquist NR, Tawfik KO, et al. A five-year update on the profile of adults undergoing cochlear implant evaluation and surgery—Are we doing better? Otol Neurotol 2022;43:e992–9.
Goman AM, Lin FR. Prevalence of hearing loss by severity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2016;106:1820–2.
Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world's largest medical device market: Utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants Int 2013;14(Suppl 1):S4–12.
Sorkin DL, Buchman CA. Cochlear implant access in six developed countries. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:e161–4.
Nassiri AM, Sorkin DL, Carlson ML. Current estimates of cochlear implant utilization in the United States. Otol Neurotol 2022;43:e558–62.
Messersmith JJ, Entwisle L, Warren S, Scott M. Clinical practice guidelines: Cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2019;30:827–44.
Premarket Approval (PMA). Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P970051 . Accessed November 3, 2022.
Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013;34:342–60.
Kelsall D, Lupo J, Biever A. Longitudinal outcomes of cochlear implantation and bimodal hearing in a large group of adults: A multicenter clinical study. Am J Otolaryngol 2021;42:102773.
Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;45:111–27.
Vaerenberg B, Smits C, De Ceulaer G, et al. Cochlear implant programming: A global survey on the state of the art. ScientificWorldJournal 2014;2014:501738.
Hodges AV, Balkany TJ, Ruth RA, et al. Electrical middle ear muscle reflex: Use in cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117(3 Pt 1):255–61.
Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Polak M, et al. Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: Assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2011;73:189–95.
Wolfe J, Gilbert M, Schafer E, et al. Optimizations for the electrically-evoked stapedial reflex threshold measurement in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2017;38:255–61.
Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA, Holden LK, Demorest ME. Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. Ear Hear 1999;20:443–60.
Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, et al. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 2004;25:375–87.
Holden LK, Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA. Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:777–93.
Shpizner BA, Holliday RA, Roland JT, et al. Postoperative imaging of the multichannel cochlear implant. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:1517–24.
Coombs A, Clamp PJ, Armstrong S, Robinson PJ, Hajioff D. The role of post-operative imaging in cochlear implant surgery: A review of 220 adult cases. Cochlear Implants Int 2014;15:264–71.
Noble JH, Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams AJ, Dawant BM, Labadie RF. Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy. Audiol Neurootol 2014;19:400–11.
Holder JT, Kessler DM, Noble JH, Gifford RH, Labadie RF. Prevalence of extracochlear electrodes: Computerized tomography scans, cochlear implant maps, and operative reports. Otol Neurotol 2018;39:e325–31.
Dhanasingh A, Jolly C. Review on cochlear implant electrode array tip fold-over and scalar deviation. J Otol 2019;14:94–100.
Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Holden TA, Zwolan TA, et al. Effects of electrode location on estimates of neural health in humans with cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2020;21:259–75.
Brochier T, Guérit F, Deeks JM, et al. Evaluating and comparing behavioural and electrophysiological estimates of neural health in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2021;22:67–80.
Walia A, Shew MA, Lee DS, et al. Promontory electrocochleography recordings to predict speech-perception performance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2022;43:915–23.
Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Conrad CA, Zwolan TA. Datalogging statistics and speech recognition during the first year of use in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:e686–93.
Holder JT, Dwyer NC, Gifford RH. Duration of processor use per day is significantly correlated with speech recognition abilities in adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2020;41:e227–31.
Holder JT, Gifford RH. Effect of increased daily cochlear implant use on auditory perception in adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021;64:4044–55.
Polak M, Hodges AV, King JE, Balkany TJ. Further prospective findings with compound action potentials from Nucleus 24 cochlear implants. Hear Res 2004;188(1–2):104–16.
Wolfe J, Kasulis H. Relationships among objective measures and speech perception in adult users of the HiResolution bionic ear. Cochlear Implants Int 2008;9:70–81.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62–70.
Auditory Potential. Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) for Adult Cochlear Implant Users New User Manual. 2011. Available at: www.auditory potential.com . Accessed October 6, 2022.
Studebaker GA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1985;28:455–62.
Thornton AR, Raffin MJ. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a bimodal variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978;21:507–18.
Maruthurkkara S, Allen A, Cullington H, et al. Remote check test battery for cochlear implant recipients: Proof of concept study. Int J Audiol 2022;61:443–52.
Cullington HE, Agyemang-Prempeh A. Person-centred cochlear implant care: Assessing the need for clinic intervention in adults with cochlear implants using a dual approach of an online speech recognition test and a questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int 2017;18:76–88.
Philips B, Smits C, Govaerts PJ, Doorn I, Vanpoucke F. Empowering senior cochlear implant users at home via a tablet computer application. Am J Audiol 2018;27(3S):417–30.
de Graaff F, Huysmans E, Philips B, et al. Our experience with home self-assessment of speech recognition in the care pathway of 10 newly implanted adult cochlear implant users. Clin Otolaryngol 2019;44:446–51.
Goudey B, Plant K, Kiral I, et al. A multi-center analysis of factors associated with hearing outcome for 2,735 adults with cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2021;25. doi:23312165211037525.
doi: 23312165211037525