Dataset Information

Management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss among primary care physicians in Canada: a survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) is a medical emergency requiring immediate attention as delayed treatment can lead to permanent and devastating consequences. Primary care physicians are likely the first to be presented with SSNHL and therefore have the crucial role of recognizing it and initiating timely and appropriate management. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the current knowledge and practice trends pertaining to the diagnosis and management of SSNHL among family physicians in Canada.

Methods

An 18-question survey targeting Canadian family physicians was marketed through two, physician-only discussion groups on the social media platform Facebook. Responses were collected between August 1st and December 22nd 2019 then aggregated and quantified.

Results

52 family physicians submitted responses. 94.2% (n = 49) reported that in their practice, unilateral SSNHL warrants urgent referral to otolaryngology and 84.6% (n = 44) reported that unilateral sudden-onset hearing loss warrants urgent referral for audiological testing. 73.1% of participants (n = 38) reported that they would attempt to differentiate between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss if presented with unilateral, acute or sudden-onset hearing loss. 61.5% (n = 32) would rely on tuning fork tests to inform management decisions, as compared to 94.2% (n = 49) relying on case history and 88.5% (n = 46) on otoscopy. 76.9% (n = 40) would prescribe corticosteroids if presented with confirmed, unilateral SSNHL.

Conclusion

The majority of family physicians in the study would make appropriate referral and treatment decisions in the management of SSNHL, understanding it is a medical emergency. Tuning fork tests are under-utilized for informing management decisions compared to other means of differentiating conductive and sensorineural hearing loss. Further research is needed to understand why some family physicians do not prescribe corticosteroids for treatment of SSNHL, which may then identify any gaps in knowledge or inform improvements in clinical protocol.

SUBMITTER: Ng B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015047 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome.MethodsAll 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age: 60 years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7 days) than in NISSNHL (8.9 days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmaxabs) was 8.1 dB ± 18.8 dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2 dB ± 17.6 dB. A Δ3PTAmaxabs ≥ 10 dB was reached in 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011).ConclusionsISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.

Project description:ImportancePatients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) often experience permanent hearing impairment, which could result in psychological perturbations. However, the relationship between ISSNHL and affective disorders, including depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, has not been fully evaluated.ObjectiveTo investigate the potential relationship between ISSNHL and affective disorders using nationwide representative cohort sample data.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a nationwide propensity score-matched cohort sample from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from 2002 through 2013, which comprises data from approximately 1 million patients. The study included 1425 patients with ISSNHL and 7125 individuals without ISSNHL who were matched using propensity score matching, according to sociodemographic factors and enrollment year.Main outcomes and measuresSurvival analysis, the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate the incidence, survival rate, and hazard ratio (HR) of developing affective disorders (anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder) for each group.ResultsOf the total study population of 8550 (51.5% female), 961 developed affective disorders during the 11-year follow-up: 225 in the ISSNHL group (15.8%) and 736 in the comparison group (10.3%). We examined a total of 96 885.5 person-years (81 177.4 person-years in the comparison group and 15 708.1 person-years in the ISSNHL group). The incidence of affective disorders was 14.3 per 1000 person-years in the ISSNHL group and 9.1 per 1000 person-years in the comparison group. After adjustment for other factors, individuals with ISSNHL developed affective disorders more frequently than those in the comparison group (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.30-1.75). Among the affective disorders, the HR of developing depression (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.44-1.91) and anxiety disorder (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.56-2.05) but not bipolar disorder (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.70), was significantly greater in patients with ISSNHL.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study suggests that ISSNHL is associated with an increased incidence of affective disorders, specifically depression and anxiety. Therefore, these findings suggest that clinicians should monitor patients with ISSNHL carefully, and take specific precautions to reduce their risk of depression and anxiety disorder.