Outcomes in Patients Meeting Cochlear Implant Criteria in Noise but Not in Quiet.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) recipients qualifying in AzBio noise but not quiet, and identify factors associated with postimplantation improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary otology/neurotology clinic. PATIENTS: This study included 212 implanted ears. The noise group comprised 23 ears with preoperative AzBio more than or equal to 40% in quiet and less than or equal to 40% in +10 signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The quiet group included 189 ears with preoperative AzBio less than 40% in quiet. The two groups displayed similar demographics and device characteristics. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AzBio in quiet and noise. RESULTS: Mean AzBio quiet scores improved in both the quiet group (pre-implant: 12.7%, postimplant: 67.2%, p < 0.001) and noise group (pre-implant: 61.6%, postimplant: 73.8%, p = 0.04). Mean AzBio +10 SNR also improved in the quiet group (pre-implant: 15.8%, postimplant: 59.3%, p = 0.001) and noise group (pre-implant: 30.5%, postimplant: 49.1%, p = 0.01). However, compared with the quiet group, fewer ears in the noise group achieved within-subject improvement in AzBio quiet (≥15% improvement; quiet group: 90.3%, noise group: 43.8%, p < 0.001) and AzBio +10 SNR (quiet group: 100.0%, noise group: 45.5%, p < 0.001). Baseline AzBio quiet (p < 0.001) and Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) scores (p = 0.004) were associated with within-subject improvement in AzBio quiet and displayed a higher area under the curve than either aided or unaided pure-tone average (PTA) (both p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CI patients qualifying in noise display significant mean benefit in speech recognition scores but are less likely to benefit compared with those qualifying in quiet. Patients with lower baseline AzBio quiet scores are more likely to display postimplant improvement.

Multicenter US Clinical Trial With an Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System in Adults: Final Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) System, for adults with residual low-frequency hearing and severe-to-profound hearing loss in the mid to high frequencies. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, repeated measures. SETTING: Multicenter, hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-three subjects implanted with PULSAR or SONATA cochlear implants with FLEX electrode arrays. INTERVENTION: Subjects were fit postoperatively with an audio processor, combining electric stimulation and acoustic amplification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unaided thresholds were measured preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postactivation. Speech perception was assessed at these intervals using City University of New York sentences in noise and consonant-nucleus-consonant words in quiet. Subjective benefit was assessed at these intervals via the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale questionnaires. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of 73 subjects (92%) completed outcome measures for all study intervals. Of those 67 subjects, 79% experienced less than a 30 dB HL low-frequency pure-tone average (250-1000 Hz) shift, and 97% were able to use the acoustic unit at 12 months postactivation. In the EAS condition, 94% of subjects performed similarly to or better than their preoperative performance on City University of New York sentences in noise at 12 months postactivation, with 85% demonstrating improvement. Ninety-seven percent of subjects performed similarly or better on consonant-nucleus-consonant words in quiet, with 84% demonstrating improvement. CONCLUSION: The MED-EL EAS System is a safe and effective treatment option for adults with normal hearing to moderate sensorineural hearing loss in the low frequencies and severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in the high frequencies who do not benefit from traditional amplification.