Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants.
Wertigkeit von Patient-Reported Outcome Measures zur Bewertung des Versorgungsvorteils der Sprachprozessorumversorgung bei Patient/-innen mit Cochleaimplantaten.
Hearing tests
Prostheses and implants
Quality improvement
Speech audiometry
Speech perception
Journal
HNO
ISSN: 1433-0458
Titre abrégé: HNO
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 2985099R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2023
01 Sep 2023
Historique:
accepted:
02
07
2023
medline:
1
9
2023
pubmed:
1
9
2023
entrez:
1
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Patients with a cochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for a new speech processor every 6 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades. Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99 patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4 weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction. The speech processor upgrade resulted in a significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7 percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dB signal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, a significant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006). A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified a proportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry. There was a significant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only a small improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with a cochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for a new speech processor every 6 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades.
METHODS
METHODS
Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99 patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4 weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The speech processor upgrade resulted in a significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7 percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dB signal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, a significant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006). A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified a proportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only a small improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37656221
doi: 10.1007/s00106-023-01342-6
pii: 10.1007/s00106-023-01342-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Amann E, Anderson I (2014) Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19). Acta Otolaryngol 134:915–923. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2014.909604
doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.909604
pubmed: 24975453
Bächinger D, Mlynski R, Weiss NM (2020) Establishing the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Zurich Chronic Middle Ear Inventory (ZCMEI-21) in patients treated for chronic middle ear disease. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277:1039–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05819-w
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05819-w
pubmed: 31989271
pmcid: 7072039
Basra MKA, Salek MS, Camilleri L et al (2015) Determining the minimal clinically important difference and responsiveness of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): further data. Dermatol Basel Switz 230:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365390
doi: 10.1159/000365390
Biever A, Gilden J, Zwolan T et al (2018) Upgrade to Nucleus® 6 in Previous Generation Cochlear
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17016
pubmed: 30278865
Billinger-Finke M, Bräcker T, Weber A et al (2020) Development and validation of the audio processor satisfaction questionnaire (APSQ) for hearing implant users. Int J Audiol 59:392–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1697830
pubmed: 31944127
Capretta NR, Moberly AC (2016) Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users? Laryngoscope 126:699–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25525
doi: 10.1002/lary.25525
pubmed: 26256441
Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199504000-00005
doi: 10.1097/00003446-199504000-00005
pubmed: 7789669
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde (2021) S2k-Leitlinie „Cochlea-Implantat Versorgung“ (gültig bis 30.10.2025), AWMF-Register-Nr. 017 - 071. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/017-071l_S2k_Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung . Zugegriffen: 16. Apr. 2021
Dixon PR, Shipp D, Smilsky K et al (2019) Association of speech processor technology and speech recognition outcomes in adult cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 40:595–601. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002172
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002172
pubmed: 31083080
Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43:85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050014
doi: 10.1080/14992020400050014
pubmed: 15035561
pmcid: 5593096
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (2021) Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Verordnung von Hilfsmitteln in der vertragsärztlichen Versorgung (Hilfsmittel-Richtlinie, HilfsM-RL). https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-2467/HilfsM-RL_2021-03-18_iK-2021-04-01.pdf . Zugegriffen: 7. Mai 2022
Hagen R, Radeloff A, Stark T et al (2020) Microphone directionality and wind noise reduction enhance speech perception in users of the MED-EL SONNET audio processor. Cochlear Implants Int 21:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2019.1664529
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1664529
pubmed: 31524107
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
pubmed: 2691207
Kompis M, Senn P, Schmid C et al (2010) Improvement in speech understanding and user satisfaction after upgrading from the Medel Tempo+ to the OPUS2 speech processor. Cochlear Implants Int 11(Suppl 1):437–441. https://doi.org/10.1179/146701010X12671177204147
doi: 10.1179/146701010X12671177204147
pubmed: 21756668
Löhler J, Frohburg R, Moser L (2010) The use of the German APHAB for quality control in hearing aid fitting in an ENT-office. Comparison of our results with the given US-norm. Laryngorhinootologie 89:737–744. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1261891
doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1261891
pubmed: 20706977
Medizinischer Dienst, des Spitzenverbandes Bund, der Krankenkassen e. V. (MDS) (2020) Begutachtungsanleitung. Richtlinie des GKV-Spitzenverbandes nach § 282 SGB V. Apparative Versorgung bei Schwerhörigkeit.
Mertens G, Hofkens A, Punte AK et al (2015) Hearing performance in single-sided deaf cochlear implant users after upgrade to a single-unit speech processor. Otol Neurotol 36:51–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000653
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000653
pubmed: 25406874
Mosnier I, Marx M, Venail F et al (2014) Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2381-8
doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2381-8
pubmed: 23408020
Mosnier I, Mathias N, Flament J et al (2017) Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3335–3342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4651-3
doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4651-3
pubmed: 28664331
Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Nguyen Y, Lahlou G (2021) Benefits in noise from sound processor upgrade in thirty-three cochlear implant users for more than 20 years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278:827–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06144-y
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06144-y
pubmed: 32588171
Müller-Deile J, Kortmann T, Hoppe U et al (2009) Improving speech comprehension using a new cochlear implant speech processor. HNO 57:567–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-008-1781-3
doi: 10.1007/s00106-008-1781-3
pubmed: 18685820
Plasmans A, Rushbrooke E, Moran M et al (2016) A multicentre clinical evaluation of paediatric cochlear implant users upgrading to the Nucleus(®) 6 system. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 83:193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.02.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.02.004
pubmed: 26968076
Rauch A‑K, Metzner T, Aschendorff A et al (2019) Durch Upgrade von Sprachprozessoren erhöhtes Sprachverständnis bei Patienten mit Cochleaimplantat. HNO 67:778–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-019-00734-x
doi: 10.1007/s00106-019-00734-x
pubmed: 31468082
Seebens Y, Diller G (2012) Improvements in speech perception after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 audio processor. ORL 74:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000333124
doi: 10.1159/000333124
pubmed: 22094825
Todorov MJ, Galvin KL (2018) Benefits of upgrading to the Nucleus® 6 sound processor for a wider clinical population. Cochlear Implants Int 19:210–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2018.1452584
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2018.1452584
pubmed: 29566583
Vasil KJ, Lewis J, Tamati T et al (2020) How does quality of life relate to auditory abilities? A subitem analysis of the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. J Am Acad Audiol 31:292–301. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19047
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19047
pubmed: 31580803
pmcid: 7103517
Warren CD, Nel E, Boyd PJ (2019) Controlled comparative clinical trial of hearing benefit outcomes for users of the Cochlear
doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1572984
pubmed: 30714500