Association of Cognitive Impairment Screening Scores With Improvements in Speech Recognition and Quality of Life After Cochlear Implantation.

Importance: Many cochlear implant centers screen patients for cognitive impairment as part of the evaluation process, but the utility of these scores in predicting cochlear implant outcomes is unknown. Objective: To determine whether there is an association between cognitive impairment screening scores and cochlear implant outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series of adult cochlear implant recipients who underwent preoperative cognitive impairment screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) from 2018 to 2020 with 1-year follow-up at a single tertiary cochlear implant center. Data analysis was performed on data from January 2018 through December 2021. Exposures: Cochlear implantation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative MoCA scores and mean (SD) improvement (aided preoperative to 12-month postoperative) in Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant phonemes (CNCp) and words (CNCw), AzBio sentences in quiet (AzBio Quiet), and Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-35 (CIQOL-35) Profile domain and global scores. Results: A total of 52 patients were included, 27 (52%) of whom were male and 46 (88%) were White; mean (SD) age at implantation was 68.2 (13.3) years. Twenty-three (44%) had MoCA scores suggesting mild and 1 (2%) had scores suggesting moderate cognitive impairment. None had been previously diagnosed with cognitive impairment. There were small to medium effects of the association between 12-month postoperative improvement in speech recognition measures and screening positive or not for cognitive impairment (CNCw mean [SD]: 48.4 [21.9] vs 38.5 [26.6] [d = -0.43 (95% CI, -1.02 to 0.16)]; AzBio Quiet mean [SD]: 47.5 [34.3] vs 44.7 [33.1] [d = -0.08 (95% CI, -0.64 to 0.47)]). Similarly, small to large effects of the associations between 12-month postoperative change in CIQOL-35 scores and screening positive or not for cognitive impairment were found (global: d = 0.32 [95% CI, -0.59 to 1.23]; communication: d = 0.62 [95% CI, -0.31 to 1.54]; emotional: d = 0.26 [95% CI, -0.66 to 1.16]; entertainment: d = -0.005 [95% CI, -0.91 to 0.9]; environmental: d = -0.92 [95% CI, -1.86 to 0.46]; listening effort: d = -0.79 [95% CI, -1.65 to 0.22]; social: d = -0.51 [95% CI, -1.43 to 0.42]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series, screening scores were not associated with the degree of improvement of speech recognition or patient-reported outcome measures after cochlear implantation. Given the prevalence of screening positive for cognitive impairment before cochlear implantation, preoperative screening can be useful for early identification of potential cognitive decline. These findings support that screening scores may have a limited role in preoperative counseling of outcomes and should not be used to limit candidacy.

When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine indications, surgical efficacy, and audiologic outcomes of replacing Advanced Bionics Clarion C1.2 internal devices (Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, CA) as a means of technology upgrade. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review, case series. METHODS: Ten patients were initially implanted as a child (mean age = 3.87 years) and underwent cochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) with current Advanced Bionics internal device as a young adult (mean duration of implant use = 15.66 years). Demographic data and pre- and post-CIR speech perception scores were collected. RESULTS: Technology upgrade was the primary (9) or secondary (1) motivation for CIR. No surgical complications were noted, and full insertion was obtained in nine cases. Intraoperative impedance levels and neural response imaging measures were within normal limits for eight patients. At most recent post-CIR follow-up evaluation, all patients (100%) performed within or better than the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR word and sentence recognition scores; and 55.6%, 50.0%, and 50.0% of patients performed above the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR scores for the CNC words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. CONCLUSION: Post-CIR audiological benefit was stable or improved compared to pre-CIR results in all categories by 3 months after reactivation. Given these results, patients who are unable to use the most current external processors due to incompatibility with a legacy internal device could consider reimplanation to optimize their overall performance with a cochlear implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:748-753, 2019.

Use of Adult Patient Focus Groups to Develop the Initial Item Bank for a Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life Instrument.

Importance: No instrument exists to assess quality of life (QOL) in adult cochlear implant (CI) users that has been developed and validated using accepted scientific standards. Objective: To develop a CI-specific QOL instrument for adults in accordance with the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: As required in the PROMIS guidelines, patient focus groups participated in creation of the initial item bank. Twenty-three adult CI users were divided into 1 of 3 focus groups stratified by word recognition ability. Three moderator-led focus groups were conducted based on grounded theory on December 3, 2016. Two reviewers independently analyzed focus group recordings and transcripts, with a third reviewer available to resolve discrepancies. All data were reviewed and reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. The setting was a tertiary referral center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coded focus group data. Results: The 23 focus group participants (10 [43%] female; mean [range] age, 68.1 [46.2-84.2] years) represented a wide range of income levels, education levels, listening modalities, CI device manufacturers, duration of CI use, and age at implantation. Data saturation was determined to be reached before the conclusion of each of the focus groups. After analysis of the transcripts, the central themes identified were communication, emotion, environmental sounds, independence and work function, listening effort, social isolation and ability to socialize, and sound clarity. Cognitive interviews were carried out on 20 adult CI patients who did not participate in the focus groups to ensure item clarity. Based on these results, the initial QOL item bank and prototype were developed. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient focus groups drawn from the target population are the preferred method of identifying content areas and domains for developing the item bank for a CI-specific QOL instrument. Compared with previously used methods, the use of patient-centered item development for a CI-specific QOL instrument will more accurately reflect patient experience and increase our understanding of how CI use affects QOL.