Why Do Cochlear Implant Candidates Defer Surgery? A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE(S): Despite undergoing thorough cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluation and counseling, some patients ultimately elect against implantation. This study sought to identify patient-related and socioeconomic factors predicting CI deferral. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult (≥18 years old) CI candidates presenting between 2007 and 2021 at a tertiary academic CI center was performed. The primary outcome was device implantation. Data collected included age, gender, hearing status, race, zip code of residence, median family income (MFI), distance traveled from the CI center, marital status, employment status, and insurance status. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of implantation. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients qualifying for CI were included, encompassing 77 adults deferring surgery (CI-deferred) and 123 consecutive adults electing for surgery (CI-pursued). Age, gender, hearing status, insurance type, employment status, distance from the implant center, and MFI were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). Compared to CI-pursued patients, CI-deferred patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (24.7% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.015) and unmarried (55.8% vs. 38.2%, p = 0.015). On multivariable logistic regression, older age (OR 0.981, 0.964-0.998, p = 0.027), African American race (OR 0.227, 0.071-0.726, p = 0.012), and unmarried status (OR 0.505, 0.273-0.935, p = 0.030) were independent predictors of implant deferral. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that increasing age at evaluation, African American race, and unmarried status are predictors for deferring CI surgery despite being implant candidates. These patients may benefit from increased outreach in the form of counseling, education, and social support prior to undergoing CI surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 - retrospective study with internal control group Laryngoscope, 134:2857-2863, 2024.

Investigating Deferral Rates in Cochlear Implantation: How Often Do Candidates Defer and Why?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the rate at which cochlear implant (CI) candidates decline surgery and identify associated factors. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Four hundred ninety-three CI candidates from July 1989 to December 2020 with complete demographic and socioeconomic data. INTERVENTIONS: Diagnostic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, sex, race, marital and employment status, median household income percentile, distance-to-CI-center, and residence in a medically underserved county. RESULTS: Of the 493 CI candidates included, 80 patients (16.2%) declined surgery. Based on chart checking, the most common reason patients did not receive the implant was due to loss of follow-up (38%). African American patients were 73% less likely to undergo implantation compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.27 [0.11-0.68]; p = 0.005). Asian patients were 95% less likely to undergo implantation (OR, 0.05 [0.009-0.25]; p = 0.0003) compared with White patients. For every 1-year age increase, patients were 4% less likely to undergo implantation (OR, 0.96 [0.94-0.98]; p < 0.0001) and for every 10-year age increase, the patients were 33% less likely. Compared with their single counterparts, married patients were more likely to undergo implantation (OR, 1.87 [1.12-3.15]; p = 0.02). No differences were observed when comparing implanted and nonimplanted CI candidates in sex, employment status, distance-to-CI-center, or median family income percentile. A χ2 test of independence showed no association between receiving CIs and living in medically underserved counties ( χ2 = 2; N = 493; 0.3891; p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Not infrequently, CI candidates decline surgery. Although demographic factors (race, age, and marital status) were associated with the cochlear implantation decision, socioeconomic factors (median family income and residence in a medically underserved community) were not. Perhaps cultural components of a patient's race have a larger impact on whether or not the patients get implanted.

Development and Chinese Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Cochlear Implant Quality-of-Life Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the Chinese cross-cultural adaptation of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-10 Global (CIQOL-10 Global) instrument. PATIENTS: Bilingual Chinese American cochlear implant users. INTERVENTION: Chinese cross-cultural adaptation of the CIQOL-10 Global. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Description of the process of Chinese cross-cultural adaptation of the CIQOL-10 Global and pilot testing of the Chinese CIQOL-10 Global in the target patient population. RESULTS: The CIQOL-10 Global was cross-culturally adapted into Chinese. Ten participants were recruited for pilot testing. There was wide representation from across the target population in terms of age (mean, 44.8 yr; range, 20.2-80.3 yr), sex (5 were male, 5 were female), education, and socioeconomic factors. All participants were able to easily read, comprehend, and fill out the Chinese CIQOL-10 Global. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the CIQOL-10 Global is now available to provide an overall assessment of quality of life of Chinese-speaking cochlear implant users.

Cost-effectiveness of Canal Wall-Up vs Canal Wall-Down Mastoidectomy: A Modeling Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative lifetime costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness between the 2 approaches, canal wall-up (CWU) and canal wall-down (CWD) tympanomastoidectomy, used in the treatment of cholesteatomas. STUDY DESIGN: Markov state transition model. SETTING: Tertiary academic health system. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was used to simulate outcomes across the patient lifetime. Outcome and complication probabilities were obtained from the existing literature. Costs were calculated from the payer perspective, with procedure, hospital, clinic, and physician cost derived from Medicare reimbursement. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to represent effectiveness and utility. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were conducted. RESULTS: The base case analysis, assuming a 40-year-old patient, yielded a lifetime cost of $14,214 for a patient treated with the CWU approach assuming second-look surgery and $22,290 with a CWD approach. CWU and CWD generated a benefit of 17.11 and 17.30 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CWU was $43,237 per QALY. The Monte Carlo PSA validated the base case scenario. Using a standard $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, CWD was the more cost-effective approach and was selected 54.8% of the time by the simulation. CONCLUSION: Both CWU and CWD were found to be cost-effective, with CWD being cost-effective 54.8% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000. The assumptions used in the analysis were validated by the results of 1-way and PSA.