Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The French Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): Cochlear implant candidacy assessment of off-label indications.
Quatre, R; Fabre, C; Aubry, K; Bordure, P; Bozorg-Grayeli, A; Deguine, O; Eyermann, C; Franco-Vidal, V; Godey, B; Guevara, N; Karkas, A; Klopp, N; Labrousse, M; Lebreton, J-P; Lerosey, Y; Lescanne, E; Loundon, N; Marianowski, R; Merklen, F; Mezouaghi, K; Mom, T; Moreau, S; Mosnier, I; Noël-Petroff, N; Parietti-Winkler, C; Piller, P; Poncet, C; Radafy, E; Roman, S; Roux-Vaillard, S; Tavernier, L; Truy, E; Vincent, C; Schmerber, S.
Afiliación
  • Quatre R; Service d'ORL, CHU de Grenoble, 38700 La Tronche, France.
  • Fabre C; Service d'ORL, CHU de Grenoble, 38700 La Tronche, France.
  • Aubry K; CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France.
  • Bordure P; CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France.
  • Bozorg-Grayeli A; CHU de Dijon, Dijon, France.
  • Deguine O; CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
  • Eyermann C; CHU de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
  • Franco-Vidal V; CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
  • Godey B; CHU de Rennes, Rennes, France.
  • Guevara N; CHU de Nice, Nice, France.
  • Karkas A; CHU de Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, France.
  • Klopp N; CHU d'Amiens, Amiens, France.
  • Labrousse M; CHU de Reims, Reims, France.
  • Lebreton JP; CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
  • Lerosey Y; CHU de Rouen, Rouen, France.
  • Lescanne E; CHU de Tours, Tours, France.
  • Loundon N; Hôpital Necker, Paris, France.
  • Marianowski R; CHU de Brest, Brest, France.
  • Merklen F; CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
  • Mezouaghi K; CH de La Réunion, Saint-Denis, Réunion.
  • Mom T; CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  • Moreau S; CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
  • Mosnier I; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France.
  • Noël-Petroff N; Hôpital Robert-Debré, Paris, France.
  • Parietti-Winkler C; CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France.
  • Piller P; CH de Nouméa, Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie.
  • Poncet C; Hôpital Rothschild, Paris, France.
  • Radafy E; CH du Lamentin, Martinique, Guadeloupe.
  • Roman S; CHU de Marseille, Marseille, France.
  • Roux-Vaillard S; CHU d'Angers, Angers, France.
  • Tavernier L; CHU de Besançon, Besançon, France.
  • Truy E; CHU de Lyon, Lyon, France.
  • Vincent C; CHU de Lille, Lille, France.
  • Schmerber S; Service d'ORL, CHU de Grenoble, 38700 La Tronche, France. Electronic address: SSchmerber@chu-grenoble.fr.
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis ; 137 Suppl 1: S27-S35, 2020 Sep.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32763084
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Evaluate in France the outcomes of cochlear implantation outside the selection criteria, off-label. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

This is a prospective cohort study including adults and children having received a cochlear implant (CI) in an off-label indication, that is outside the criteria established by the "Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)" in 2012. The data was collected from the "EPIIC" registry on recipients who received CIs in France between 2011 and 2014. Speech audiometry was performed at 60dB preimplantation and after one year of CI use, as well as an evaluation of the scores of the quality of life with the APHAB questionnaire, the scores for CAP and the professional/academic status in pre- and post-implantation conditions. Major and minor complications at surgery have been recorded.

RESULTS:

In total, 590 patients (447 adults and 143 children) with an off-label indication for CIs were included in this study from the EPIIC registry (11.7% of the whole cohort of EPIIC). For adults, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 41% in preimplantation condition versus 53% after one year of CI use (P<0.001) and 60% versus 71% in dissyllabic word lists (P<0.001). The CAP scores were 5 versus 6 in pre- and post-implantation conditions respectively (P<0.001) and the APHAB scores were statistically lower after implantation (P<0.001). In the children cohort, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 51% in preimplantation condition and 65% after CI (P<0.001), and 48% versus 82% (P<0.001) for dissyllabic word lists. The CAP scores were 5 versus 7 respectively in pre- and post-CI conditions (P<0.001). Thirty-two minor complications (5.4%) and 17 major complications (2.8%) were reported in our panel of off-label indication patients.

CONCLUSION:

These results suggest that a revision of the cochlear implantation candidacy criteria is necessary to allow more patients with severe or asymmetric hearing loss to benefit from a CI when there is an impact on quality of life despite the use of an optimal hearing aid.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistema de Registros / Implantes Cocleares / Selección de Paciente / Implantación Coclear / Implantación Auditiva en el Tronco Encefálico / Pérdida Auditiva Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistema de Registros / Implantes Cocleares / Selección de Paciente / Implantación Coclear / Implantación Auditiva en el Tronco Encefálico / Pérdida Auditiva Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia