» Articles » PMID: 37435829

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force: Recommendations for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults

Overview
Journal Laryngoscope
Date 2023 Jul 12
PMID 37435829
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded over time due to evidence demonstrating identification and implantation of appropriate cochlear implant (CI) candidates lead to significant improvements in speech recognition and quality of life (QoL). However, clinical practice is variable, with some providers using outdated criteria and others exceeding current labeled indications. As a results, only a fraction of those persons who could benefit from CI technology receive it. This document summarizes the current evidence for determining appropriate referrals for adults with bilateral hearing loss into CI centers for formal evaluation by stressing the importance of treating each ear individually and a "revised 60/60 rule". By mirroring contemporary clinical practice and available evidence, these recommendations will also provide a standardized testing protocol for CI candidates using a team-based approach that prioritizes individualized patient care. This manuscript was developed by the Adult Cochlear Implantation Candidacy Task Force of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance using review of the existing literature and clinical consensus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:S1-S14, 2024.

Citing Articles

Utilization of the Spanish Bisyllable Word Recognition Test to Assess Cochlear Implant Performance Trajectory.

Holcomb M, Williams E, Prentiss S, Sanchez C, Smeal M, Stern T J Clin Med. 2025; 14(3).

PMID: 39941445 PMC: 11818614. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14030774.


Validating the Iowa Test of Consonant Perception in a large cohort of cochlear implant users.

Smith F, Berger J, Gander P, Schwalje A, Griffiths T, McMurray B JASA Express Lett. 2025; 5(2).

PMID: 39927846 PMC: 11833676. DOI: 10.1121/10.0035804.


Brazilian Society of Otology task force - cochlear implant ‒ recommendations based on strength of evidence.

Tsuji R, Hamerschmidt R, Lavinsky J, Felix F, Silva V Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; 91(1):101512.

PMID: 39442262 PMC: 11539123. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2024.101512.


Cochlear Implantation: Long-Term Effect of Early Activation on Electrode Impedance.

Alahmadi A, Abdelsamad Y, Yousef M, Almuhawas F, Hafez A, Alzhrani F J Clin Med. 2024; 13(11).

PMID: 38893010 PMC: 11172931. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113299.

References
1.
Gifford R, Shallop J, Peterson A . Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol. 2008; 13(3):193-205. DOI: 10.1159/000113510. View

2.
Sladen D, Gifford R, Haynes D, Kelsall D, Benson A, Lewis K . Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. Laryngoscope. 2017; 127(10):2368-2374. PMC: 6145808. DOI: 10.1002/lary.26513. View

3.
Dorman M, Gifford R, Spahr A, McKarns S . The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol Neurootol. 2007; 13(2):105-12. PMC: 3559130. DOI: 10.1159/000111782. View

4.
Dierickx C, Jacquemin L, Boon E, Dierckx A, Debruyne F, Wouters J . Predictive factors of speech understanding in adults with cochlear implants. B-ENT. 2018; 12(3):219-226. View

5.
Gantz B, Dunn C, Oleson J, Hansen M, Parkinson A, Turner C . Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016; 126(4):962-73. PMC: 4803613. DOI: 10.1002/lary.25572. View