Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design and Speech Understanding.

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant electrode arrays are categorized based on their design as lateral wall (LW) and perimodiolar (PM) electrode arrays. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of LW versus PM designs on postoperative speech perception across multiple manufacturers and over long follow-up durations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 478 adult cochlear implant recipients, implanted between the years 1992 and 2017. INTERVENTIONSS: PM versus LW cochlear implants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Postoperative Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Word (CNC-w) and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) scores between 6 months and 5 years. RESULTS: Across 478 patients, approximately one-third received LW (n = 176, 36.8%), whereas 302 patients received a PM array (63.2%). The PM group had higher CNC-w scores from 6 months to 2 years (52 [interquartile range, 38-68] versus 48 [31-62], p = 0.036) and from 2 to 5 years (58 [43-72] versus 48 [33-66], p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis of patient-averaged scores indicated that the PM group had greater improvement from preoperative scores at all time points after the initial 6 months for both CNC-w ( ß = 4.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-8.3], p = 0.023) and HINT testing ( ß = 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 0.3-8.7], p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that PM electrode arrays are associated with small increases in postoperative speech perception scores, relative to LW arrays, when assessed across manufacturers, over long time durations, and using multiple outcome instruments. These findings may help guide surgeon selection and patient counseling of cochlear implant arrays.

Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation.

Introduction: Single sided deafness (SSD) results in profound cortical reorganization that presents clinically with a significant impact on sound localization and speech comprehension. Cochlear implantation (CI) has been approved for two manufacturers' devices in the United States to restore bilateral function in SSD patients with up to 10 years of auditory deprivation. However, there is great variability in auditory performance and it remains unclear how auditory deprivation affects CI benefits within this 10-year window. This prospective study explores how measured auditory performance relates to real-world experience and device use in a cohort of SSD-CI subjects who have between 0 and 10 years of auditory deprivation. Methods: Subjects were assessed before implantation and 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-CI activation via Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word recognition and Arizona Biomedical Institute (AzBio) sentence recognition in varying spatial speech and noise presentations that simulate head shadow, squelch, and summation effects (S0N0, SSSDNNH, SNHNSSD; 0 = front, SSD = impacted ear, NH = normal hearing ear). Patient-centered assessments were performed using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ), and Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Device use data was acquired from manufacturer software. Further subgroup analysis was performed on data stratified by <5 years and 5-10 years duration of deafness. Results: In the SSD ear, median (IQR) CNC word scores pre-implant and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-implant were 0% (0-0%), 24% (8-44%), 28% (4-44%), and 18% (7-33%), respectively. At 6 months post-activation, AzBio scores in S0N0 and SSSDNNH configurations (n = 25) demonstrated statistically significant increases in performance by 5% (p = 0.03) and 20% (p = 0.005), respectively. The median HUI3 score was 0.56 pre-implant, lower than scores for common conditions such as anxiety (0.68) and diabetes (0.77), and comparable to stroke (0.58). Scores improved to 0.83 (0.71-0.91) by 3 months post-activation. These audiologic and subjective benefits were observed even in patients with longer durations of deafness. Discussion: By merging CI-associated changes in objective and patient-centered measures of auditory function, our findings implicate central mechanisms of auditory compensation and adaptation critical in auditory performance after SSD-CI and quantify the extent to which they affect the real-world experience reported by individuals.

Longitudinal Auditory Benefit for Elderly Patients After Cochlear Implant for Bilateral Hearing Loss, Including Those Meeting Expanded Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of patient age on longitudinal speech understanding outcomes after cochlear implantation (CI) in bilateral hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: One thousand one hundred five adult patients with bilateral hearing loss receiving a unilateral CI between 1987 and 2022InterventionsNone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative speech recognition outcomes, including AzBio sentences, consonant-nucleus-consonant word, and Hearing in Noise Test in quiet were analyzed at short-term (<2 yr), medium-term (2-8 y), and long-term (>8 yr) term postoperative intervals. RESULTS: Eighty-six very elderly (>80 yr), 409 elderly (65-80 yr), and 709 nonelderly (18-65 yr) patients were included. Short-term postoperative AzBio scores demonstrated similar magnitude of improvement relative to preoperative scores in the very elderly (47.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.9-66.4), elderly (49.0; 95% CI, 39.2-58.8), and nonelderly (47.9; 95% CI, 35.4-60.4). Scores for those older than 80 years remained stable after 2 years after implant, but in those 80 years or younger, scores continued to improve for up to 8 years (elderly: 6.2 [95% CI, 1.5-12.4]; nonelderly: 9.9 [95% CI, 2.1-17.7]) after implantation. Similar patterns were observed for consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores. Across all age cohorts, patients with preoperative Hearing in Noise Test scores between 40 and 60% had similar scores to those with preoperative scores of less than 40%, at short-term (82.4, 78.9; 95% CI, -23.1 to 10.0), medium-term (77.2, 83.9; 95% CI, -15.4 to 8.2), or long-term (73.4, 71.2; 95% CI, -18.2 to 12.2) follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients older than 80 years gain significant and sustained auditory benefit after CI, including those meeting expanded Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service criteria for implantation. Patients younger than 80 years demonstrated continued improvement over longer periods than older patients, suggesting a role of central plasticity in mediating CI outcomes as a function of age.

Augmented meaningful use criteria to identify patients eligible for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose-radiation (low-dose computed tomography [LDCT]) saves lives. Despite recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) draft endorsement of LCS, a minority of eligible patients get screened. Meaningful use is a set of standards for electronic health records (EHR) established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and includes reporting of smoking status. We sought to improve rates of LCS among patients treated at our institution by identifying eligible patients using augmented smoking-related meaningful use criteria. METHODS: We launched an LCS program at our institution, a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer center, in January 2013. We developed a "tobacco screen," administered by clinic staff to all adult outpatients every 6 months and entered into the EHR. This contained smoking-related meaningful use criteria as well as a pack-year calculation and quit date if applicable. Weekly electronic reports of patients who met eligibility criteria for LCS were generated, and EHR review excluded patients who had had chest computed tomography (CT) within 12 months or who were undergoing cancer treatment. We then contacted eligible patients to review eligibility for LCS and communicated with the primary treating physician regarding the plan for LCS. RESULTS: During the first 3 months of the program, 4 patients were enrolled, 2 by physician referral and 2 by self-referral. We then began to use the tobacco screen reports and identified 418 patients potentially eligible for LCS. Over the next 7 months, we enrolled a total of 110 patients. Fifty-eight (53%) were identified from the tobacco screen, 32 (29%) were self-referred, and 20 (18%) were physician referrals. Three stage I lung cancers were detected and treated. The tobacco screen was easily implemented by clinic staff and took a median time of 2 minutes to enter for current and former smokers. Lack of response to attempts at telephone contact and objection to paying out-of-pocket costs were the most common reasons for failing to screen eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Use of augmented meaningful use criteria containing detailed tobacco exposure history is feasible and allows for identification of patients eligible for LCS in a medical center. Barriers to LCS include lack of insurance coverage and lack of systematic referral of patients at high risk.

Oxygen for end-of-life lung cancer care: managing dyspnea and hypoxemia.

Oxygen is commonly prescribed for lung cancer patients with advancing disease. Indications include hypoxemia and dyspnea. Reversal of hypoxemia in some cases will alleviate dyspnea. Oxygen is sometimes prescribed for non-hypoxemic patients to relieve dyspnea. While some patients may derive symptomatic benefit, recent studies demonstrate that compressed room air is just as effective. This raises the question as to whether to continue their oxygen. The most efficacious treatment for dyspnea is pharmacotherapy-particularly opioids. Adjunctive therapies include pursed lips breathing and a fan blowing toward the patient. Some patients may come to require high-flow oxygen. High-flow delivery devices include masks, high-flow nasal oxygen and reservoir cannulas. Each device has advantages and drawbacks. Eventually, it may be impossible or impractical to maintain a SpO2 > 90%. The overall goal in these patients is comfort rather than a target SpO2. It may eventually be advisable to remove continuous oximetry and transition focus to pharmacological management to achieve patient comfort.