Cognitive Assessment in Elderly Cochlear Implant Recipients: Long-Term Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine long-term speech and cognition outcomes in older adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. First, by evaluating if CI performance was maintained over an extended follow-up period regardless of preoperative cognitive status. Secondly, by evaluating if there was a difference in the rate of cognitive decline between preoperative mild and normal cognition following CI over an extended period of time. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: CI recipients ≥65 years of age implanted between 2009 and 2014 with 4+ years follow up. Pre- and postoperative audiometric and speech outcome assessments were collected. Cognitive status was measured using the mini mental status examination (MMSE) at numerous time points. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients met inclusion. Patients were divided into two groups based on preoperative MMSE with scores considered normal (28-30) and those with mildly impaired cognition (MIC, scores 25-27). Audiometric and speech performance improved significantly at one-year post implantation and this was maintained without significant change at 4+ years, regardless of cognitive status. Mixed modeling analysis controlling for age demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of cognitive decline at 4+ years post implantation between the normal cognition cohort (1.74; 95%CI 0.89-2.6) and MIC (2.9; 95%1.91-3.88). CONCLUSION: Speech performance was significantly improved and sustained after CI in both normal cognition and MIC patients. The rate of cognitive decline in older adult CI patients appears to be similar regardless of preoperative cognitive status. Although results demonstrate rates of cognitive decline following CI did not differ between cognition groups over 4+ years, future studies will need to further investigate this over extended time periods with a more comprehensive cognitive testing battery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:2379-2387, 2023.

External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical application of five recently published cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluation (CICE) referral screening tools through external validation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary otology/neurotology practice. PATIENTS: Adults who underwent CICE between December 2020 and September 2021. INTERVENTIONS: CICE referral screening tools versus CI candidacy criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CICE screening tool performance, based on the ability to identify patients who met the CI candidacy criteria, was evaluated. CI candidacy criteria were defined as best-aided AzBio sentences at +10 signal-to-noise ratio and either 60% or less accuracy to reflect traditional criteria used in clinical settings or 40% or less accuracy (only patients 65 years or older) to reflect Medicare-eligible criteria. RESULTS: Screening criteria of proposed CICE referral tools vary widely across pure-tone average and word recognition scores. When screened by traditional criteria, the sensitivities and specificities of these referral tools varied from 40 to 77% and from 22 to 86%, respectively. When screened by Medicare-eligible criteria, sensitivities and specificities varied from 41 to 81% and from 24 to 91%, respectively. The screening tool proposed by Zwolan et al. ( Otol Neurotol 2020;41(7):895-900) demonstrated the best overall performance for traditional (Youden's J , 0.37; sensitivity, 62%; specificity, 75%) and Medicare-eligible patients (Youden's J , 0.44; sensitivity, 66%; specificity, 78%). All screening tools performed worse on the validation cohort compared with their respective development cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Current tools for determining CICE referral have diverse screening criteria. These combinations of pure-tone average and word recognition score are modestly successful at identifying CI candidates.

Prevalence, Surgical Management, and Audiologic Impact of Sigmoid Sinus Dehiscence Causing Pulsatile Tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence, surgical management, and audiologic impact of pulsatile tinnitus caused by sigmoid sinus dehiscence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adults with unilateral pulsatile tinnitus attributable to sigmoid sinus dehiscence who underwent resurfacing between January 2010 and January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Transmastoid sigmoid resurfacing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of pulsatile tinnitus; audiologic outcomes; complications; tinnitus etiologies. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (89.4% women) had surgery for suspected sigmoid sinus dehiscence. The mean dehiscence size was 6.1 mm (range, 1-10.7 mm). Eight patients had concurrent sigmoid sinus diverticulum and one patient also had jugular bulb dehiscence. Only two patients (10.5%) had the defect identified by radiology. Low-frequency pure-tone average, measured at frequencies of 250 and 500 Hz, showed a significant median improvement of 8.8 dB following resurfacing (18.8 dB versus 10.0 dB, p = 0.02). The majority of patients had complete resolution of pulsatile tinnitus (16/19, 84.2%). Of those without complete resolution, two patients had partial response and one patient had no improvement. There were no significant complications. Of 41 consecutively tracked patients with a pulsatile tinnitus chief complaint, sigmoid pathology represented 32% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoid sinus dehiscence represents a common vascular cause of pulsatile tinnitus that, if properly assessed, may be amenable to surgical intervention. Sigmoid sinus resurfacing is safe, does not require decompression, and may improve low-frequency hearing. Radiographic findings of dehiscence are often overlooked without a high index of clinical suspicion. Its relationship with transverse sinus pathology and idiopathic intracranial hypertension remain unclear.

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

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.