Improving quality of life in the elderly: hearing loss treatment with cochlear implants.
Cochlear implant
Cognition
Health utility
Healthy aging
Hearing
Hearing aid
Outcomes
Quality of life
Journal
BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jan 2024
04 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
27
06
2023
accepted:
26
12
2023
medline:
5
1
2024
pubmed:
5
1
2024
entrez:
4
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hearing loss impacts health-related quality of life and general well-being and was identified in a Lancet report as one of the largest potentially modifiable factors for the prevention of age-related dementia. There is a lack of robust data on how cochlear implant treatment in the elderly impacts quality of life. The primary objective was to measure the change in health utility following cochlear implantation in individuals aged ≥ 60 years. This study uniquely prospectively recruited a large multinational sample of 100 older adults (mean age 71.7 (SD7.6) range 60-91 years) with severe to profound hearing loss. In a repeated-measures design, pre and post implant outcome measures were analysed using mixed-effect models. Health utility was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3). Subjects were divided into groups of 60-64, 65-74 and 75 + years. At 18 months post implant, the mean HUI3 score improved by 0.13 (95%CI: 0.07-0.18 p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the HUI3 between age groups (F[2,9228] = 0.53, p = 0.59). The De Jong Loneliness scale reduced by an average of 0.61 (95%CI: 0.25-0.97 p < 0.014) and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale improved on average (1.25, 95%CI: 0.85-1.65 p < 0.001). Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening reduced by an average of 8.7 (95%CI: 6.7-10.8, p < 0.001) from a significant to mild-moderate hearing handicap. Age was not a statistically significant factor for any of the other measures (p > 0.20). At baseline 90% of participants had no or mild depression and there was no change in mean depression scores after implant. Categories of Auditory perception scale showed that all subjects achieved a level of speech sound discrimination without lip reading post implantation (level 4) and at least 50% could use the telephone with a known speaker. Better hearing improved individuals' quality of life, ability to communicate verbally and their ability to function independently. They felt less lonely and less handicapped by their hearing loss. Benefits were independent of age group. Cochlear implants should be considered as a routine treatment option for those over 60 years with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss. ClinicalTrials.gov ( http://www. gov/ ), 7 March 2017, NCT03072862.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hearing loss impacts health-related quality of life and general well-being and was identified in a Lancet report as one of the largest potentially modifiable factors for the prevention of age-related dementia. There is a lack of robust data on how cochlear implant treatment in the elderly impacts quality of life. The primary objective was to measure the change in health utility following cochlear implantation in individuals aged ≥ 60 years.
METHODS
METHODS
This study uniquely prospectively recruited a large multinational sample of 100 older adults (mean age 71.7 (SD7.6) range 60-91 years) with severe to profound hearing loss. In a repeated-measures design, pre and post implant outcome measures were analysed using mixed-effect models. Health utility was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3). Subjects were divided into groups of 60-64, 65-74 and 75 + years.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At 18 months post implant, the mean HUI3 score improved by 0.13 (95%CI: 0.07-0.18 p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the HUI3 between age groups (F[2,9228] = 0.53, p = 0.59). The De Jong Loneliness scale reduced by an average of 0.61 (95%CI: 0.25-0.97 p < 0.014) and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale improved on average (1.25, 95%CI: 0.85-1.65 p < 0.001). Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening reduced by an average of 8.7 (95%CI: 6.7-10.8, p < 0.001) from a significant to mild-moderate hearing handicap. Age was not a statistically significant factor for any of the other measures (p > 0.20). At baseline 90% of participants had no or mild depression and there was no change in mean depression scores after implant. Categories of Auditory perception scale showed that all subjects achieved a level of speech sound discrimination without lip reading post implantation (level 4) and at least 50% could use the telephone with a known speaker.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Better hearing improved individuals' quality of life, ability to communicate verbally and their ability to function independently. They felt less lonely and less handicapped by their hearing loss. Benefits were independent of age group. Cochlear implants should be considered as a routine treatment option for those over 60 years with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov ( http://www.
CLINICALTRIALS
RESULTS
gov/ ), 7 March 2017, NCT03072862.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38178036
doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04642-2
pii: 10.1186/s12877-023-04642-2
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03072862']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
World Health Organisation. World Report on Ageing and Health. 2015. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565042 . Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
World Report on Hearing. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/highlighting-priorities-for-ear-and-hearing-care . Accessed 5 Dec 2022.
Lawrence BJ, Jayakody DMP, Bennett RJ, Eikelboom RH, Gasson N, Friedland PL. Hearing loss and depression in older adults: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Gerontologist. 2020;60:e137–54.
doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz009
pubmed: 30835787
Nijmeijer HGB, Keijsers NM, Huinck WJ, Mylanus EAM. The effect of cochlear implantation on autonomy, participation and work in postlingually deafened adults: a scoping review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278:3135–54.
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06490-x
pubmed: 33245451
Shukla A, Harper M, Pedersen E, Goman A, Suen JJ, Price C, et al. Hearing loss, loneliness, and social isolation: a systematic review. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 2020;162:622–33.
doi: 10.1177/0194599820910377
pubmed: 32151193
pmcid: 8292986
Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, Ames D, Ballard C, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. The Lancet. 2020;396:413–46.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6
Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of 369 Diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;396:1204–22.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9
Ferguson MA, Kitterick PT, Edmondson-Jones M, Hoare DJ. Hearing Aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. In: Ferguson MA, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015.
Yang Z, Cosetti M. Safety and outcomes of cochlear implantation in the elderly: a review of recent literature. J Otol. 2016;11:1–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2016.03.004
pubmed: 29937803
pmcid: 6002585
Sonnet M-H, Montaut-Verient B, Niemier J-Y, Hoen M, Ribeyre L, Parietti-Winkler C. Cognitive abilities and quality of Life after Cochlear Implantation in the Elderly. Otology & Neurotology. 2017;38:e296–301.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001503
Yeo BSY, Song HJJMD, Toh EMS, Ng LS, Ho CSH, Ho R, et al. Association of Hearing Aids and cochlear implants with Cognitive decline and Dementia. JAMA Neurol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4427 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4427
pmcid: 9856596
Sorkin DL, Buchman CA. Cochlear Implant Access in six developed countries. Otology & Neurotology. 2016;37:e161–4.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000946
McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, Franko-Tobin E, Droghini HR, Nguyen SA, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:982–90.
doi: 10.1002/lary.26738
pubmed: 28731538
Andries E, Gilles A, Topsakal V, Vanderveken OM, Van de Heyning P, Van Rompaey V, et al. Systematic Review of Quality of Life Assessments after Cochlear Implantation in older adults. Audiol Neurotology. 2021;26:61–75.
doi: 10.1159/000508433
Müller L, Graham P, Kaur J, Wyss J, Greenham P, James CJ. Factors contributing to clinically important health utility gains in cochlear implant recipients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278:4723–31.
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06589-1
pubmed: 33452623
pmcid: 8553698
Summerfield AQ, Barton GR. Sensitivity of EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D to changes in speech reception and tinnitus associated with cochlear implantation. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:1145–54.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2070-6
pubmed: 30484121
Dixon PR, Shapiro J, Tomlinson G, Cottrell J, Lui JT, Falk L, et al. Health State Utility Values Associated with Cochlear implants in adults: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis. Ear Hear. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001287 .
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001287
pubmed: 36303282
Sarant J, Harris D, Busby P, Maruff P, Schembri A, Dowell R et al. The Effect of Cochlear implants on cognitive function in older adults: initial baseline and 18-Month follow up results for a prospective International Longitudinal Study. Front Neurosci. 2019;13.
Wick CC, Kallogjeri D, McJunkin JL, Durakovic N, Holden LK, Herzog JA, et al. Hearing and Quality-of-life outcomes after cochlear implantation in adult hearing aid users 65 years or older. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2020;146:925.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.1585
Zwolan TA, Henion K, Segel P, Runge C. The role of Age on Cochlear Implant Performance, Use, and Health Utility. Otology & Neurotology. 2014;35:1560–8.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000583
Hey M, Neben N, Stöver T, Baumann U, Mewes A, Liebscher T, et al. Outcomes for a clinically representative cohort of hearing-impaired adults using the Nucleus® CI532 cochlear implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277:1625–35.
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05893-0
pubmed: 32140773
pmcid: 7198645
Holden LK, Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Uchanski RM, Dwyer NY, Holden TA. Factors affecting outcomes in Cochlear Implant recipients implanted with a Perimodiolar electrode array located in Scala Tympani. Otology & Neurotology. 2016;37:1662–8.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001241
Chen SY, Grisel JJ, Lam A, Golub JS. Assessing Cochlear Implant outcomes in older adults using HERMES: a National web-based database. Otology & Neurotology. 2017;38:e405–12.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001575
James CJ, Graham PL, Betances Reinoso FA, Breuning SN, Durko M, Huarte Irujo A et al. The listening Network and Cochlear Implant benefits in hearing-impaired adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13.
Ellis S, Sheik Ali S, Ahmed W. A review of the impact of hearing interventions on social isolation and loneliness in older people with hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278:4653–61.
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06847-w
pubmed: 33963432
Marx M, Mosnier I, Belmin J, Wyss J, Coudert-Koall C, Ramos A, et al. Healthy aging in elderly cochlear implant recipients: a multinational observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:252.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01628-2
pubmed: 32703167
pmcid: 7376635
Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-Attribute Health Status Classification Systems Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.
pubmed: 10155335
Yesavage JA, Sheikh JI. 9/Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Clin Gerontol. 1986;5:165–73.
doi: 10.1300/J018v05n01_09
Lawton MP, THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF, ELDERLY PEOPLE. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1971;19:465–81.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1971.tb01206.x
pubmed: 5094650
De Jong Gierveld J, Van Tilburg T. The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. Eur J Ageing. 2010;7:121–30.
doi: 10.1007/s10433-010-0144-6
pubmed: 20730083
pmcid: 2921057
Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The hearing handicap inventory for the Elderly. Ear Hear. 1982;3:128–34.
doi: 10.1097/00003446-198205000-00006
pubmed: 7095321
Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Hug GA, Weinstein BE, Malinoff RL. Practical method for quantifying hearing aid benefit in older adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 1991;2:70–5.
pubmed: 1768876
Archbold S, Lutman ME, Marshall DH. Categories of auditory performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995;166:312–4.
pubmed: 7668685
Gilmour L. The inter-rater reliability of categories of auditory performance-II (CAP)-II. University of Southampton, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Masters Thesis. 2010;:135.
Välimaa TT, Sorri MJ, Löppönen HJ. Speech perception and auditory performance in Finnish adult cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2005;6:49–66.
doi: 10.1179/cim.2005.6.2.49
pubmed: 18792319
Artières-Sterkers F, Mondain M, Aubry K, Bordure P, Bozorg-Grayeli A, Deguine O, et al. The French National Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): results, quality of life, questionnaires, academic and professional life. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2020;137:57–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2020.07.013
Zenebe Y, Akele B, W/Selassie M, Necho M. Prevalence and determinants of depression among old age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2021;20:55.
doi: 10.1186/s12991-021-00375-x
pubmed: 34922595
pmcid: 8684627
Applebaum J, Hoyer M, Betz J, Lin FR, Goman AM. Long-term subjective loneliness in adults after hearing loss treatment. Int J Audiol. 2019;58:464–7.
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1593523
pubmed: 30929531
pmcid: 10436704
Völter C, Götze L, Dazert S, Falkenstein M, Thomas JP. Can cochlear implantation improve neurocognition in the aging population? Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:701–12.
doi: 10.2147/CIA.S160517
pubmed: 29719382
pmcid: 5916259