Cribado universal de la hipoacusia neonatal: ¿es más eficiente con potenciales evocados auditivos que con emisiones otoacústicas?

Universal newborn hearing screening: methods and results, obstacles, and benefits

The incidence of sensorineural hearing loss ranges from 1 to 3 per 1,000 live births in term healthy neonates, and 2-4 per 100 in high-risk infants, a 10-fold increase. Early identification and intervention with hearing augmentation within 6 mo yields optimal effect. If undetected and without treatment, significant hearing impairment may negatively impact speech development and lead to disorders in psychological and mental behaviors. Hearing screening programs in newborns enable detection of hearing impairment in the first days after birth. Programs to identify hearing deficit have significantly improved over the two decades, and their implementation continues to grow throughout the world. Initially based on risk factors, these programs identified only 50-75% of infants with hearing loss. Current recommendations are to conduct universal hearing screening in all infants. Techniques used primarily include automated auditory brainstem responses and otoacoustic emissions that provide noninvasive recordings of physiologic auditory activity and are easily performed in neonates and infants. The aim of this review is to present the objectives, benefits, and results of newborn hearing screening programs including the pros and cons of universal vs. selective screening. A brief history and the anticipated future development of these programs will also be discussed.

Newborn hearing screening at a community-based obstetric unit: Screening and diagnostic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Postnatal visits at community-based midwife obstetric units (MOUs) have been proposed as an alternative primary healthcare screening platform in South Africa. This study evaluated the outcomes of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) screening conducted by a dedicated non-professional screener at a community-based MOU in the Western Cape, South Africa.

METHODS

Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) at a community-based MOU was evaluated over a 16-month period. A dedicated non-professional screener was trained to follow a two-stage screening protocol targeting bilateral hearing loss. A two group comparative design was used alternating AABR (Maico MB11 BERAphone™()) and DPOAE (Bio-logic AuDX I) technology on a daily basis. Infants referring the initial screen received a follow-up appointment in two days' time and were rescreened with the same technology used at their first screen. Those referring the second stage were booked for diagnostic assessments.

RESULTS

7452 infants were screened including 47.9% (n=3573) with DPOAE and 52.1% (n=3879) with AABR technology. Mean age at first stage screen was 6.1 days. The initial bilateral referral rate was significantly lower for AABR (4.6%) compared to DPOAE (7.0%) and dropped to 0.3% and 0.7% respectively following the second stage screenings. First rescreen and initial diagnostic follow-up rates of 90% and 92.3% were obtained for the DPOAE group and 86.6% and 90% for the AABR group. Follow-up rates showed no significant difference between technology groups. Diagnostic assessment revealed a higher prevalence rate for bilateral SNHL among the AABR group (1/1000) compared to the DPOAE group (0.3/1000). Screening technology had no significant influence on daily screening capacity (23 AABR/day; 24 DPOAE/day).

CONCLUSIONS

Postnatal visits at community-based MOUs create a useful platform for hearing screening and follow-up. AABR technology with negligible disposable costs provides opportunity for AABR screening to be utilised in community-based programmes. AABR screening offers lower initial referral rates and a higher true positive rate compared to DPOAE.

Improving newborn hearing screening: Are automated auditory brainstem response ear inserts an effective option?

OBJECTIVE

Universal newborn hearing screening is an established practice among Hong Kong public hospitals using a 2-stage automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) screening protocol. To enhance overall efficiency without sacrificing program accuracy, cost reduction in terms of replacing the initial ear coupler-based screening with a more economical ear insert-based screening procedure was considered. This study examined the utility of an insert-based AABR initial screening approach and the projected cost-effectiveness of a combined probe-based plus follow-up ear coupler AABR screening procedure.

METHODS

Following prenatal maternal consent, newborn hearing screening was conducted with 167 healthy neonates using a cross-sectional, repeated measures study design. The neonates were screened with AABR sequentially; using ear coupler and ear probe (insert) procedures, in both ears, with two different but comparable AABR instruments. Testing took place in the antenatal ward of a department of obstetrics and gynaecology, at a large public hospital.

RESULTS

With the specific combination of instruments deployed for this study insert-based AABR screening generated a five-fold higher rescreen rate and took an additional 50% screening time compared to coupler-based AABR screening. Although the cost of consumables used in a 2-stage AABR screening protocol would reduce by 9.87% if the combined procedure was implemented, the findings indicated AABR screening when conducted with an ear probe has reduced utility compared with conventional ear coupler screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences may occur in screening outcomes when changes are made to coupler method. Initiating a 2-stage AABR screening protocol with an ear insert technique may be impracticable in newborn nurseries given the greater number of false positive cases generated by this approach in the present study and the increased time required to carry out an insert-based procedure.

The cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Universal newborn hearing screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment is standard practice in many developed economies, but until there is clear evidence of cost-effectiveness, it remains a controversial use of limited health care resources. We conducted a formal systematic review of studies of newborn hearing screening that considered both costs and outcomes to produce a summary of the available evidence and to determine whether there was a need for further research.

METHODS

A search was conducted of medical and nursing databases and gray literature websites by the use of multiple keywords. The titles and abstracts of studies were examined for preliminary inclusion if reference was made to newborn hearing screening, and to both costs and outcomes. Studies of potential relevance were independently assessed by 2 health economists for final inclusion in the review. Studies that met inclusion criteria were appraised by the use of existing guidelines for observational studies, economic evaluations and decision analytic models, and reported in a narrative literature review.

RESULTS

There were 22 distinct observational or modeled evaluations of which only 2 clearly compared universal newborn hearing screening to risk factor screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. Of these, the single evaluation that examined long-term costs and outcomes found that universal newborn hearing screening could be cost-saving if early intervention led to a substantial reduction in future treatment costs and productivity losses.

CONCLUSIONS

There are only a small number of economic evaluations that have examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening. This is partly attributable to ongoing uncertainty about the benefits gained from the early detection and treatment of bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. There is a clear need for further research on long-term costs and outcomes to establish the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening in relation to other approaches to screening, and to establish whether it is a good long term investment.