No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss.Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year follow-up period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) either, simultaneously (simBiCI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-in-noise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type).Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCI group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for follow-up. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCI group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 – 13.44], p < 0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 – -36.74], p < 0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCI group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo.Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-reported outcomes regarding speech perception in noise and localization abilities. This difference is associated with the inferior performance of the UCI/seqBiCI participants during the years of unilateral CI use. After receiving the second CI however, the performance of the UCI/seqBiCI group did not significantly differ from the simBiCI group.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722

No Difference in Behavioral and Self-Reported Outcomes for Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation:Evidence From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the behavioral and self-reported outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (simBiCI) and sequential BiCI (seqBiCI) in adults with severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss. Design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 4-year followup period after the first moment of implantation. Participants were allocated by randomization to receive bilateral cochlear implants (Cis) either, simultaneously (simBiCKI group) or sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years (UCI/seqBiCI group). All sequential patients where encouraged to use their hearing aid on the non-implanted ear over of the first 2 years. Patients were followed-up on an annual basis. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise coming from a source directly in front of the patient. Other behavioral outcome measures were speech intelligibility-innoise from spatially separated sources, localization and speech perception in quiet. Self-reported outcome measures encompassed questionnaires on quality of life, quality of hearing and tinnitus. All outcome measures were analyzed longitudinally using a linear or logistic regression analysis with an autoregressive residual covariance matrix (generalized estimating equations type). Results: Nineteen participants were randomly allocated to the simBiCl group and 19 participants to the UCI/seqBiCI group. Three participants in the UCI/seqBiCI group did not proceed with their second implantation and were therefore unavailable for followup. Both study groups performed equally well on speech perception in noise from a source directly in front of the patient longitudinally. During all 4 years of follow-up the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse compared to the simBiCl group on spatial speech perception in noise in the best performance situation (8.70 dB [3.96 13.44], p <0.001) and localization abilities (largest difference 60 degrees configuration: -44.45% [-52.15 - -36.74], p <0.0001). Furthermore, during all years of follow-up, the UCI/seqBiCI group performed significantly worse on quality of hearing and quality of life questionnaires. The years of unilateral CI use were the reason for the inferior results in the UCI/SeqBiCI group. One year after receiving CI2, the UCI/seqBiCI group performance did not statistically differ from the performance of the simBiCl group on all these outcomes. Furthermore, no longitudinal differences were seen in tinnitus burden prevalence between groups. Finally, the complications that occurred during this trial were infection, dysfunction of CI, facial nerve palsy, tinnitus and vertigo. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial on bilaterally severely hearing impaired participants found a significantly worse longitudinal performance of UCI/seqBiCI compared to simBiCI on multiple behavioral and self-reported outcomes regarding speech perception in noise and localization abilities. This difference is associated with the inferior performance of the UCI/seqBiCI participants during the years of unilateral CI use. After receiving the second CI however, the performance of the UCI/seqBiCI group did not significantly differ from the simBiCI group

Новые книги

IMPORTANCE The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant. OBJECTIVE To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI. INTERVENTIONS The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing. RESULTS Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60 degrees, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness

Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

ImportanceThere is an ongoing global discussion on whether or not bilateral cochlear implantation should be standard care for bilateral deafness. Contrary to unilateral cochlear implantation, however, little is known about the effect of bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus.ObjectiveTo investigate tinnitus outcomes 1 year after bilateral cochlear implantation. Secondarily, to compare tinnitus outcomes between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate long-term follow-up (3 years).Study designThis study is a secondary analysis as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.MethodsThirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in the original trial, in which the presence of tinnitus was not an inclusion criterion. All participants received cochlear implants (CIs) because of profound hearing loss. Nineteen participants received bilateral CIs simultaneously and 19 participants received bilateral CIs sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years. The prevalence and severity of tinnitus before and after simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were measured preoperatively and each year after implantation with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ).ResultsThe prevalence of preoperative tinnitus was 42% (16/38). One year after bilateral implantation, there was a median difference of −8 (inter-quartile range (IQR): −28 to 4) in THI score and −9 (IQR: −17 to −9) in TQ score in the participants with preoperative tinnitus. Induction of tinnitus occurred in five participants, all in the simultaneous group, in the year after bilateral implantation. Although the preoperative and also the postoperative median THI and TQ scores were higher in the simultaneous group, the median difference scores were equal in both groups. In the simultaneous group, tinnitus scores fluctuated in the 3 years after implantation. In the sequential group, four patients had an additional benefit of the second CI: a total suppression of tinnitus compared with their unilateral situation.ConclusionWhile bilateral cochlear implantation can have a positive effect on preoperative tinnitus complaints, the induction of (temporary or permanent) tinnitus was also reported.Clinical Trial RegistrationDutch Trial Register NTR1722

sj-docx-2-tia-10.1177_23312165231198368 - Supplemental material for Development of the Musi-CI Training, A Musical Listening Training for Cochlear Implant Users: A Participatory Action Research Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tia-10.1177_23312165231198368 for Development of the Musi-CI Training, A Musical Listening Training for Cochlear Implant Users: A Participatory Action Research Approach by Joke Veltman, Marjo J.M. Maas, Cilia Beijk, Adinda Y.M. Groenhuis, Huib Versnel, Constance Vissers, Wendy J. Huinck and Alexander E. Hoetink in Trends in Hearing</p

sj-docx-1-tia-10.1177_23312165231198368 - Supplemental material for Development of the Musi-CI Training, A Musical Listening Training for Cochlear Implant Users: A Participatory Action Research Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tia-10.1177_23312165231198368 for Development of the Musi-CI Training, A Musical Listening Training for Cochlear Implant Users: A Participatory Action Research Approach by Joke Veltman, Marjo J.M. Maas, Cilia Beijk, Adinda Y.M. Groenhuis, Huib Versnel, Constance Vissers, Wendy J. Huinck and Alexander E. Hoetink in Trends in Hearing</p

Development of a Squelch Effect in Adult Patients After Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

Objectives:To investigate whether a squelch effect occurs in the first 3 years after simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate whether this effect increases during follow-up.Study Design:Prospective study as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial that compares simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation to sequential and unilateral cochlear implantation.Setting:Tertiary referral center.Patients:Nineteen postlingually deafened adults.Intervention:Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation.Main Outcome Measure:The squelch effect, measured yearly with a speech-intelligibility-in-noise test with spatially separated sources. Bilateral results were compared to unilateral results in which the cochlear implant at the noise side was turned off. The squelch effect was investigated for the patients' best performing ear and for the left and right ears separately.Results:In 13 individual patients, a squelch effect was present after 1 year. This number increased during follow-up years. On group level, a squelch effect was present in patients' best performing ear after 2 and 3 years (1.9dB). A squelch effect was present in both ears after 3 years (AS: 1.7dB, AD: 1.3dB).Conclusion:Patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation developed a measurable benefit from the squelch effect after 2 years in their best performing ear and after 3 years in both ears. These observations suggest that the brain learns to use interaural differences to segregate sound from noise after simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation. The squelch effect increased over time which suggests a growth in cortical integration and differentiation of inputs from bilateral CIs due to brain plasticity.Trial Registration:Dutch Trial Register NTR1722.Level of evidence: 1b

Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

Importance: There is an ongoing global discussion on whether or not bilateral cochlear implantation should be standard care for bilateral deafness. Contrary to unilateral cochlear implantation, however, little is known about the effect of bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus. Objective: To investigate tinnitus outcomes 1 year after bilateral cochlear implantation. Secondarily, to compare tinnitus outcomes between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate long-term follow-up (3 years). Study design: This study is a secondary analysis as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in the original trial, in which the presence of tinnitus was not an inclusion criterion. All participants received cochlear implants (CIs) because of profound hearing loss. Nineteen participants received bilateral CIs simultaneously and 19 participants received bilateral CIs sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years. The prevalence and severity of tinnitus before and after simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were measured preoperatively and each year after implantation with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ). Results: The prevalence of preoperative tinnitus was 42% (16/38). One year after bilateral implantation, there was a median difference of -8 (inter-quartile range (IQR): -28 to 4) in THI score and -9 (IQR: -17 to -9) in TQ score in the participants with preoperative tinnitus. Induction of tinnitus occurred in five participants, all in the simultaneous group, in the year after bilateral implantation. Although the preoperative and also the postoperative median THI and TQ scores were higher in the simultaneous group, the median difference scores were equal in both groups. In the simultaneous group, tinnitus scores fluctuated in the 3 years after implantation. In the sequential group, four patients had an additional benefit of the second CI: a total suppression of tinnitus compared with their unilateral situation. Conclusion: While bilateral cochlear implantation can have a positive effect on preoperative tinnitus complaints, the induction of (temporary or permanent) tinnitus was also reported. Clinical Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722

Tinnitus after Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation

Importance: There is an ongoing global discussion on whether or not bilateral cochlear implantation should be standard care for bilateral deafness. Contrary to unilateral cochlear implantation, however, little is known about the effect of bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus. Objective: To investigate tinnitus outcomes 1 year after bilateral cochlear implantation. Secondarily, to compare tinnitus outcomes between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation and to investigate long-term follow-up (3 years). Study design: This study is a secondary analysis as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults were included in the original trial, in which the presence of tinnitus was not an inclusion criterion. All participants received cochlear implants (CIs) because of profound hearing loss. Nineteen participants received bilateral CIs simultaneously and 19 participants received bilateral CIs sequentially with an inter-implant interval of 2 years. The prevalence and severity of tinnitus before and after simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantation were measured preoperatively and each year after implantation with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ). Results: The prevalence of preoperative tinnitus was 42% (16/38). One year after bilateral implantation, there was a median difference of -8 (inter-quartile range (IQR): -28 to 4) in THI score and -9 (IQR: -17 to -9) in TQ score in the participants with preoperative tinnitus. Induction of tinnitus occurred in five participants, all in the simultaneous group, in the year after bilateral implantation. Although the preoperative and also the postoperative median THI and TQ scores were higher in the simultaneous group, the median difference scores were equal in both groups. In the simultaneous group, tinnitus scores fluctuated in the 3 years after implantation. In the sequential group, four patients had an additional benefit of the second CI: a total suppression of tinnitus compared with their unilateral situation. Conclusion: While bilateral cochlear implantation can have a positive effect on preoperative tinnitus complaints, the induction of (temporary or permanent) tinnitus was also reported. Clinical Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1722

Cost-Utility of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-utility of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) versus unilateral CI. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight postlingually deafened adults eligible for cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from a health insurance perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was assessed using the HUI3, TTO, VAS on hearing, VAS on general health and EQ-5D. We modeled the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of unilateral versus bilateral CI over periods of 2, 5, 10, 25 years, and actual life-expectancy. RESULTS: Direct costs for unilateral and bilateral CI were €43,883 ± €11,513(SD) and €87,765 ± €23,027(SD) respectively. Annual costs from the second year onward were €3,435 ± €1,085(SD) and €6,871 ± €2,169(SD), respectively. A cost-utility analysis revealed that a second implant became cost-effective after a 5- to 10-year period, based on the HUI3, TTO, and VAS on hearing. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that describes a cost-utility analysis to compare unilateral with simultaneous bilateral CI in postlingually deafened adults, using a multicenter RCT. Compared with accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, simultaneous bilateral CI is a cost-effective treatment for patients with a life expectancy of 5-10 years or longer