» Articles » PMID: 34938881

Development of a Novel Screening Tool for Predicting Cochlear Implant Candidacy

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2021 Dec 23
PMID 34938881
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-established treatment for sensorineural hearing loss. Due in part to a lack of referral guidelines, CI technology remains underutilized, and many patients who could benefit from CI may not be referred for evaluation. This study aimed to develop a model for predicting CI candidacy using routine audiometric measures, with the goal of providing guidance to clinicians regarding when to refer a patient for CI evaluation.

Methods: Unaided three-frequency pure tone average (PTA), unaided speech discrimination score (SDS), and best-aided sentence recognition testing with AZBio sentence lists were collected from 252 subjects undergoing CIE. Candidacy was defined by meeting traditional (AZBio score ≤ 60%), or Medicare criteria (≤40%). A logistic regression model was developed to predict candidacy. Confusion matrices were plotted to determine the sensitivity and specificity at various probability thresholds.

Results: Logistic regression models were capable of predicting probability of candidacy for traditional criteria ( < .001) and Medicare criteria ( < .001). PTA and SDS were significant predictors ( < .001). Using a probability cutoff of .5, the models yielded a sensitivity rate of 91% and 78% for traditional and Medicare criteria, respectively.

Conclusion: Probability of CI candidacy may be determined using a novel screening tool for referral. This tool supports individualized counseling, serves as a proof of concept for candidacy prediction, and could be modified based on an institution's philosophy regarding an acceptable false positive rate of referral.

Level Of Evidence: 4.

Citing Articles

Estimating the United States Patient Population Size Meeting Audiologic Candidacy for Cochlear Implantation.

Yu K, Shen S, Bowditch S, Sun D Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023; 170(3):870-876.

PMID: 37997296 PMC: 10922682. DOI: 10.1002/ohn.589.


Machine Learning Approach for Screening Cochlear Implant Candidates: Comparing With the 60/60 Guideline.

Patro A, Perkins E, Ortega C, Lindquist N, Dawant B, Gifford R Otol Neurotol. 2023; 44(7):e486-e491.

PMID: 37400135 PMC: 10524241. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003927.


Candidacy for Cochlear implantation: Validating a novel Cochlear implant candidacy calculator against gold-standard, in-clinic audiometric assessments.

So R, Padova D, Bowditch S, Agrawal Y Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2022; 7(3):835-839.

PMID: 35734067 PMC: 9195020. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.804.


Development of a novel screening tool for predicting Cochlear implant candidacy.

Ngombu S, Ray C, Vasil K, Moberly A, Varadarajan V Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021; 6(6):1406-1413.

PMID: 34938881 PMC: 8665459. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.673.

References
1.
Vickers D, De Raeve L, Graham J . International survey of cochlear implant candidacy. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016; 17 Suppl 1:36-41. DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1155809. View

2.
Dornhoffer J, Holcomb M, Meyer T, Dubno J, Mcrackan T . Factors Influencing Time to Cochlear Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2020; 41(2):173-177. PMC: 7577180. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002449. View

3.
Hoppe U, Hast A, Hocke T . Audiometry-Based Screening Procedure for Cochlear Implant Candidacy. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36(6):1001-5. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000730. View

4.
Mcrackan T, Hand B, Velozo C, Dubno J . Development of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Item Bank. Ear Hear. 2018; 40(4):1016-1024. PMC: 6749825. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000684. View

5.
Lupo J, Biever A, Kelsall D . Comprehensive hearing aid assessment in adults with bilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who present for Cochlear implant evaluation. Am J Otolaryngol. 2019; 41(2):102300. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2019.102300. View