Dataset Information

Saccades Matter: Reduced Need for Caloric Testing of Cochlear Implant Candidates by Joint Analysis of v-HIT Gain and Corrective Saccades.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Video head impulse test (v-HIT) is a quick, non-invasive and relatively cheap test to evaluate vestibular function compared to the caloric test. The latter is, however, needed to decide on the optimal side to perform cochlear implantation to avoid the risk on inducing a bilateral vestibular areflexia. This study evaluates the effectiveness of using the v-HIT to select cochlear implant (CI) candidates who require subsequent caloric testing before implantation, in that way reducing costs and patient burden at the same time. Study Design: Retrospective study using clinical data from 83 adult CI-candidates, between 2015 and 2020 at the Leiden University Medical Center. Materials and Methods: We used the v-HIT mean gain, MinGain_LR, the gain asymmetry (GA) and a newly defined parameter, MGS (Minimal Gain & Saccades) as different models to detect the group of patients that would need the caloric test to decide on the ear of implantation. The continuous model MGS was defined as the MinGain_LR, except for the cases with normal gain (both sides ≥0.8) where no corrective saccades were present. In the latter case MGS was defined to be 1.0 (the ideal gain value). Results: The receiver operating characteristics curve showed a very good diagnostic accuracy with and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 for the model MGS. The v-HIT mean gain, the minimal gain and GA had a lower diagnostic capacity with an AUC of 0.70, 0.72, and 0.73, respectively. Using MGS, caloric testing could be avoided in 38 cases (a reduction of 46%), with a test sensitivity of 0.9 (i.e., missing 3 of 28 cases). Conclusions: The newly developed model MGS balances the sensitivity and specificity of the v-HIT better than the more commonly evaluated parameters such as mean gain, MinGain_LR and GA. Therefore, taking the presence of corrective saccades into account in the evaluation of the v-HIT gain can considerably reduce the proportion of CI-candidates requiring additional caloric testing.

SUBMITTER: Fuentealba Bassaletti C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCurrently, no clear guidelines exist regarding clinical testing methods for identifying adult cochlear implant (CI) candidates. Indications provided by the US Food and Drug Administration, Medicare, and private insurers are ambiguous concerning test materials and the level and mode of test presentation. This could lead to wide variability in clinical assessment and, potentially, unequal access to CIs for individuals with clinically significant hearing loss.ObjectiveTo examine the preoperative testing methods used by audiologists in evaluating adult CI candidates across the United States.Design, setting, and participantsA survey assessing audiology practice patterns was created using a Research Electronic Data Capture system hosted at the University of Miami. A link to a survey (65 questions in multiple-choice or rank-order format was distributed electronically along with a request for completion to members of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance and to the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training forum. Responses were collected from January 17 to June 4, 2018. Participation was limited to audiologists who evaluate adult CI candidates, and respondents who do not provide adult CI care were excluded. Collected demographic information included work setting, years of experience, and highest level of education attained.Main outcomes and measuresPercentages, medians, and interquartile ranges were from aggregated responses concerning hearing aid verification methods; testing methods, materials, and practices; nonauditory factors that might affect CI candidacy; audiology practice patterns; and expanded indications for CIs.ResultsAnonymized surveys were returned by 99 respondents; because surveys were available electronically, the number of audiologists who viewed the survey but did not respond was not available. Seven respondents identified themselves as pediatric specialists and were excluded, resulting in a total of 92 surveys available for analysis (denominators vary because respondents could complete the survey without answering all questions). Seventy percent of respondents (51 of 72) were doctors of audiology, and nearly 50% (33 of 74) were employed at universities and academic centers performing more than 50 CIs per year. When assessing adult candidacy for implant, most respondents reported using test materials from the Minimum Speech Test Battery: 96% (51 of 53), using AzBio sentences in quiet; 89% (47 of 53), AzBio sentences in noise; and 100% (53 of 53), the consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant, monosyllabic words test. However, these tests were applied inconsistently, with 39 of 53 respondents (74%) reporting use of a sound pressure level scale and the other 14 (26%) a hearing level scale at various decibel levels, and with some using a single signal-to-noise ratio and others using multiple ratios for sound-in-noise tests. Respondents' definitions of the best aided listening condition for assessing implant candidates also varied widely. Among the nonauditory factors ranked most important for assessing CI candidacy were patient's level of cognition and expectations of CI; yet, few respondents reported including cognitive or psychological tests in the assessment protocol.Conclusions and relevanceFindings of this study reveal considerable variability in preoperative testing methods and practices across health care professionals assessing adult candidates for CI. This lack of standardization in the delivery of care may increase the risk for health care inequities, specifically in access to care for adults with clinically significant hearing loss.

Project description:HYPOTHESIS:Clinical adult cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations rely heavily on measures of sentence recognition under the best-aided listening conditions. The hypothesis tested in this study was that nonauditory measures of neurocognitive processes would contribute to scores on preoperative sentence recognition for CI candidates, above and beyond hearing ability as assessed using pure-tone average (PTA). Support for this hypothesis would suggest that best-aided sentence recognition is not simply a measure of hearing ability; rather, neurocognitive functions contribute to performance and should be considered while counseling patients during CI candidacy evaluation about postoperative rehabilitative and outcome expectations. BACKGROUND:Neurocognitive functions, such as working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning contribute to aided speech recognition outcomes in adults with hearing loss. This study examined the roles of these neurocognitive factors on preoperative speech recognition performance in adults evaluated for CI candidacy. METHODS:Thirty-one postlingually deafened adult CI candidates were enrolled. Participants were assessed using nonauditory measures of working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning. Measures of sentence recognition in quiet and in multitalker babble (AzBio sentences) as well as sentences from the City University of New York in quiet were collected under best-aided conditions. RESULTS:AzBio sentence recognition scores in babble were predicted significantly by scores of working memory capacity after accounting for PTA. Similarly, the City University of New York sentence recognition scores were predicted significantly by nonverbal reasoning after accounting for PTA. CONCLUSIONS:Findings support the idea that clinical measures of sentence recognition may be affected to varying degrees by neurocognitive functions, and these functions should be considered during evaluation for CI candidacy.

Dataset Information

Saccades Matter: Reduced Need for Caloric Testing of Cochlear Implant Candidates by Joint Analysis of v-HIT Gain and Corrective Saccades.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets