Dataset Information

Assessment of Speech Understanding After Cochlear Implantation in Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Cochlear implants were approved for use in adults in the 1980s, but use remains low owing to a lack of awareness regarding cochlear implantation candidacy criteria and expected outcomes. There have been limited, small series examining the safety and effectiveness of cochlear implantation in adult hearing aid (HA) users with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Objective

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of a single-ear cochlear implant in a group of optimized adult HA users with and without MCI across a variety of domains.

Design, setting, and participants

In this nonrandomized controlled trial, a multicenter, prospective, repeated-measures investigation was conducted at 13 US institutions. The setting was academic and community-based cochlear implant programs. Eligible participants were 100 adults (aged >18 years) with postlinguistic onset of bilateral moderate sloping to profound or worse sensorineural hearing loss (≤20 years' duration). Fluent English speakers underwent an optimized bilateral HA trial for at least 30 days. Individuals with aided Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word score in quiet of 40% or less correct in the ear to be implanted and 50% or less correct in the contralateral ear were offered cochlear implants. The first participant was enrolled on February 20, 2017, and the last participant was enrolled on May 3, 2018. The final follow-up was on December 21, 2018.

Interventions

Participants received the same cochlear implant system and contralateral HA.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome measure was speech understanding in quiet (CNC word score) using both the cochlear implant and opposite ear HA. Secondary outcome measures included the following: adverse events; speech understanding in noise (AzBio signal-to-noise ratio of +10 db [+10 SNR]) Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3); Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Questionnaire 49 (SSQ49); and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

Results

The median age at cochlear implantation of the 96 patients included in the trial was 71 years (range, 23-91 years), and 62 patients (65%) were male. Three serious adverse events requiring revision surgery occurred, and all resolved without sequelae. By 6 months after activation, the absolute marginal mean change in CNC word score and AzBio +10 SNR was 40.5% (95% CI, 35.9%-45.0%) and 24.1% (95% CI, 18.9%-29.4%), respectively. Ninety-one percent (87 of 96) of participants had a clinically important improvement (>15%) in the CNC word score in the implant ear. Mild cognitive impairment (MoCA total score ≤25) was observed in 48 of 81 study participants (59%) at baseline. Speech perception marginal mean improvements were similar between individuals with and without baseline MCI, with values of 40.9% (95% CI, 35.2%-46.6%) and 39.6% (95% CI, 31.8%-47.4%), respectively, for CNC word score and 27.5% (95% CI, 21.0%-33.9%) and 17.8% (95% CI, 9.0%-26.6%), respectively, for AzBio +10 SNR. Statistically significant and clinically important improvements in the HUI3 and SSQ49 were evident at 6 months.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this nonrandomized controlled trial seem to indicate that cochlear implants are safe and effective in restoring speech understanding in both quiet and noise and improve quality of life in individuals with and without MCI.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03007472.

SUBMITTER: Buchman CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7453346 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHearing loss, especially moderate to severe forms, has the potential to negatively affect an individual's physical, social, emotional, and cognitive well-being. Moreover, having ineffective binaural hearing increases difficulty understanding speech in noise and leads to a greater degree of social isolation and loneliness and a reduced quality of life (QoL).ObjectiveTo explore the audiometric and holistic effects of cochlear implantation in a group of adults 65 years or older compared with an optimized bilateral hearing aid condition.Design, setting, and participantsThis ad hoc secondary analysis of a prospective, single-subject, repeated-measures nonrandomized clinical trial included 13 cochlear implantation centers across the United States. Participants 65 years or older with postlingual bilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with aided Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores in quiet of 40% or less in the ear to undergo implantation and 50% or less in the contralateral ear were included in the analysis. Baseline QoL testing was performed after 1 month of optimized bilateral hearing aid use. Participants were enrolled from February 20, 2017, to May 3, 2018, and follow-up was completed December 21, 2018. Data were analyzed from March 25, 2019, to March 31, 2020.InterventionsUnilateral implantation with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant device. Hearing aid use in the contralateral ear was required through the 6-month primary end-point interval.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary objective was to evaluate speech perception before and 6 months after activation of a new cochlear implant. Secondary objectives were QoL metrics in the everyday listening condition before and 6 months after implantation.ResultsSeventy participants (51 men [73%]) with a median age of 74 (range, 65-91) years were included in the analysis. No major adverse events occurred. Mixed-model analysis with estimated marginal means and 95% CIs compared preimplantation baseline performance with 6-month postimplantation performance. A clinically important improvement in CNC words was shown in the bimodal condition, with a mean difference of 37.2% (95% CI, 32.0%-42.4%), and in the unilateral (cochlear implant only) condition, with a mean difference of 44.1% (95% CI, 39.0%-49.2%). A clinically important improvement in noise (AzBio sentences signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB) was also shown, with a mean difference of 21.6% (95% CI, 15.7%-27.5%) in the bimodal condition and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3%-30.7%) in the unilateral condition. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 multiple-attribute score improved by 0.186 (95% CI, 0.136-0.234); the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale total score improved by 2.58 (95% CI, 2.18-2.99); and a novel Device Use Questionnaire reported 94% of participants were satisfied with overall hearing in the everyday listening condition.Conclusions and relevanceThis subgroup analysis of patients 65 years or older enrolled in a within-subject clinical trial of cochlear implantation demonstrated clinically meaningful audiometric and QoL benefit with an acceptable risk profile. These findings suggest that cochlear implantation in older adults may facilitate the concept of healthy aging.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03007472.

Project description:Cochlear implants are a standard therapy for deafness, yet the ability of implanted patients to understand speech varies widely. To better understand this variability in outcomes, the authors used functional near-infrared spectroscopy to image activity within regions of the auditory cortex and compare the results to behavioral measures of speech perception.The authors studied 32 deaf adults hearing through cochlear implants and 35 normal-hearing controls. The authors used functional near-infrared spectroscopy to measure responses within the lateral temporal lobe and the superior temporal gyrus to speech stimuli of varying intelligibility. The speech stimuli included normal speech, channelized speech (vocoded into 20 frequency bands), and scrambled speech (the 20 frequency bands were shuffled in random order). The authors also used environmental sounds as a control stimulus. Behavioral measures consisted of the speech reception threshold, consonant-nucleus-consonant words, and AzBio sentence tests measured in quiet.Both control and implanted participants with good speech perception exhibited greater cortical activations to natural speech than to unintelligible speech. In contrast, implanted participants with poor speech perception had large, indistinguishable cortical activations to all stimuli. The ratio of cortical activation to normal speech to that of scrambled speech directly correlated with the consonant-nucleus-consonant words and AzBio sentences scores. This pattern of cortical activation was not correlated with auditory threshold, age, side of implantation, or time after implantation. Turning off the implant reduced the cortical activations in all implanted participants.Together, these data indicate that the responses the authors measured within the lateral temporal lobe and the superior temporal gyrus correlate with behavioral measures of speech perception, demonstrating a neural basis for the variability in speech understanding outcomes after cochlear implantation.

Project description:Measurement of outcomes has become increasingly important to assess the benefit of audiologic rehabilitation, including hearing aids, in adults. Data from questionnaires, however, are based on retrospective recall of events and experiences, and often can be inaccurate. Questionnaires also do not capture the daily variation that typically occurs in relevant events and experiences. Clinical researchers in a variety of fields have turned to a methodology known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess quotidian experiences associated with health problems. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using EMA to obtain real-time responses from hearing aid users describing their experiences with challenging hearing situations.This study required three phases: (1) develop EMA methodology to assess hearing difficulties experienced by hearing aid users; (2) make use of focus groups to refine the methodology; and (3) test the methodology with 24 hearing aid users. Phase 3 participants carried a personal digital assistant 12 hr per day for 2 weeks. The personal digital assistant alerted participants to respond to questions four times a day. Each assessment started with a question to determine whether a hearing problem was experienced since the last alert. If "yes," then up to 23 questions (depending on contingent response branching) obtained details about the situation. If "no," then up to 11 questions obtained information that would help to explain why hearing was not a problem. Each participant completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) both before and after the 2-week EMA testing period to evaluate for "reactivity" (exacerbation of self-perceived hearing problems that could result from the repeated assessments).Participants responded to the alerts with a 77% compliance rate, providing a total of 991 completed momentary assessments (mean = 43.1 per participant). A substantial amount of data were obtained with the methodology. It is important to note that participants reported a "hearing problem situation since the last alert" 37.6% of the time (372 responses). The most common problem situation involved "face-to-face conversation" (53.8% of the time). The next most common problem situation was "telephone conversation" (17.2%) followed by "TV, radio, iPod, etc." (15.3%), "environmental sounds" (9.7%), and "movies, lecture, etc." (4.0%). Comparison of pre- and post-EMA mean HHIE scores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05), indicating that reactivity did not occur for this group. It should be noted, however, that 37.5% of participants reported a greater sense of awareness regarding their hearing loss and use of hearing aids.Results showed participants were compliant, gave positive feedback, and did not demonstrate reactivity based on pre- and post-HHIE scores. We conclude that EMA methodology is feasible with patients who use hearing aids and could potentially inform hearing healthcare (HHC) services. The next step is to develop and evaluate EMA protocols that provide detailed daily patient information to audiologists at each stage of HHC. The advantages of such an approach would be to obtain real-life outcome measures, and to determine within- and between-day variability in outcomes and associated factors. Such information at present is not available from patients who seek and use HHC services.