Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery

Demographic Representation in Clinical Research Relative to a Cochlear Implant Patient Population

OBJECTIVES

Research samples that are representative of patient populations are needed to ensure the generalizability of study findings. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of a study design and recruitment strategy in obtaining a participant sample that was representative of the broader cochlear implant (CI) patient population at the CI center. A secondary aim was to review whether the CI recipient population was representative of the state population.

METHODS

Demographic variables were compared for a research participant sample (n = 79) and the CI patient population (n = 338). The participant sample was recruited from the CI patient population. The study design included visits that were at the same location and frequency as the recommended clinical follow-up intervals. The demographics for the combined group (participant sample and patient population) were then compared to the reported demographics for the population in North Carolina.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the participant sample and patient population for biological sex, age at implantation, racial distribution, socioeconomic position, degree of urbanization, or drive time to the CI center (p ≥ 0.086). The combined CI recipient population was significantly different from the North Carolina population for the distributions of race, ethnicity, and degree of urbanization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study design and recruitment strategy allowed for recruitment of a participant sample that was representative of the CI patient population. Disparities in access to cochlear implantation persist, as supported by the significant differences in the combined CI recipient population and the population for our state.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

AI model for predicting adult cochlear implant candidacy using routine behavioral audiometry

OBJECTIVE

To describe an AI model to facilitate adult cochlear implant candidacy prediction based on basic demographical data and standard behavioral audiometry.

METHODS

A machine-learning approach using retrospective demographic and audiometric data to predict candidacy CNC word scores and AzBio sentence in quiet scores was performed at a tertiary academic center. Data for the model were derived from adults completing cochlear implant candidacy testing between January 2011 and March 2023. Comparison of the prediction model to other published prediction tools and benchmarks was performed.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 770 adults, encompassing 1045 AzBio entries, and 1373 CNC entries. Isophoneme scores and word recognition scores exhibited strongest importance to both the CNC and AzBio prediction models, followed by standard pure tone average and low-frequency pure tone average. The mean absolute difference between the predicted and actual score was 15 percentage points for AzBio sentences in quiet and 13 percentage points for CNC word scores, approximating anticipated test-retest constraints inherent to the variables incorporated into the model. Our final combined model achieved an accuracy of 87 % (sensitivity: 90 %; precision: 80 %).

CONCLUSION

We present an adaptive AI model that predicts adult cochlear implant candidacy based on routine behavioral audiometric and basic demographical data. Implementation efforts include a public-facing online prediction tool and accompanying smartphone program, an embedded notification flag in the electronic medical record to alert providers of potential candidates, and a program to retrospectively engage past patients who may be eligible for cochlear implantation based on audiogram results.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward cochlear implants among deaf patients who received cochlear implants

Despite the growing use of cochlear implants in deaf patients, there is a lack of data on their knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) toward cochlear implants. This study aimed to investigate the KAP toward cochlear implants among deaf patients who received cochlear implants. A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2022 and December 2022 among deaf patients who had received cochlear implants. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect demographic characteristics and KAP scores. A total of 526 participants were enrolled; 54.18% were female, 65.40% were above 60 years old, and 61.03% were surveyed at less than 3 years after implantation. The mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were 8.15 ± 2.18 (possible range: 0-10), 43.63 ± 6.98 (possible range: 12-60), and 41.11 ± 7.42 (possible range: 11-55), respectively, indicating good knowledge, moderate attitude and practice. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that attitude [odd ratio (OR) = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.29, P < 0.001] and unemployment (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.63, P = 0.001) were independently associated with practice. Path analysis showed that knowledge directly influenced attitude (β = 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.19, P < 0.001), attitude directly influenced practice (β = 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.61, P < 0.001), and knowledge directly (β = 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, P < 0.001) and indirectly (β = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.66, P < 0.001) influenced practice. Deaf patients who received cochlear implants showed good knowledge, moderate attitude and practice toward cochlear implants. Knowledge should be strengthened to improve attitude and practice toward cochlear implants, which could translate into realistic expectations toward cochlear implants devices and proper care and maintenance.

Cochlear Implant Referral Criteria for the Spanish-Speaking Adult Population

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the "60/60 Guideline" in a diverse patient population.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Data were collected for adult patients (18 years and older) who underwent a cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) between January 2016 and March 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Development of the "60/60 Guideline" has provided better clarity on when to refer English-speaking patients for a CIE. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of this referral tool in the Spanish-speaking population.

RESULTS

In our group of patients who underwent a traditional CIE (n = 402), 209 met unaided and aided traditional cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria. Of the 193 individuals who did not meet both components of traditional candidacy criteria, a majority met the aided component (86%) but only 4.6% met the unaided component. When applying the 60/60 Guideline to patients who met traditional criteria, there is a sensitivity rating of 84.7% and a specificity index of 50.3%. For English and Spanish speakers who met traditional criteria but did not meet the 60/60 Guideline, a majority (83.3% English, 87.5% Spanish) had a better ear word recognition score (WRS) greater than 60%, suggesting the unaided WRS is the more restrictive component of the "60/60 Guideline."

CONCLUSION

Application of the "60/60 Guideline" is an effective method to identify potential CI candidates in the English-speaking population; however, it was less effective in the Spanish-speaking population. Spanish-speaking adults should be referred for a CIE when better ear pure tone average is greater than 60 dB hearing loss, regardless of their unaided WRS. This study highlights the need for inclusion of nonlinguistic test measures in the CI referral criteria and test battery to reduce CI access barriers for patients who speak a language other than English.

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

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.

Cochlear implant referral patterns in the UK suggest a postcode lottery with inequitable access for older adults; results of a pilot audit in five Audiology sites

OBJECTIVE

To use a standardised reporting tool to identify potential eligible candidates for cochlear implant (CI) referral and quantify the proportion of adults who had a CI referral discussion after presenting with an audiogram within United Kingdom (UK) audiometric criteria.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre 6-month audit of Audiology clinic databases.

STUDY SAMPLE

A total of 810 adults from five geographically diverse UK Audiology sites.

RESULTS

Data were collected in late 2019 after UK CI audiometric candidacy criteria changed; one site collected only 3 months of data. The proportion of potential eligible adults (based only on audiometry) considered for CI referral was 64% (521 out of 810) and varied by site (from 50% to 83%). About 24% of patients (123 out of 521) declined CI referral; this also varied across sites (12-45%). The median age of patients where CI referral was not considered was 80 years - significantly higher than the group where CI referral was considered (73 years).

CONCLUSIONS

CI referral is dependent on where adults live, and how old they are. Older adults are significantly less likely to be considered for CI referral by Audiologists. Audiology clinics need more support to empower staff to talk to patients about CI referral.

National Trends in Cochlear Implantation Across the Department of the Defense: A Case for Inclusion as a General Otolaryngology Core Competency

OBJECTIVE

With ongoing national expansions in cochlear implantation (CI) candidacy criteria, more patients qualify for CI today than ever before. Among US veterans and military service members, the prevalence of qualifying degrees of hearing loss secondary to occupational noise exposure exceeds the general population. The primary aim of the current work was to evaluate CI trends across the military health system.

STUDY DESIGN

Database review.

SETTING

Military and civilian practices.

PATIENTS

Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries who underwent CI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CI rates between 2010 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 3,573 cochlear implant operations were performed among DoD beneficiaries from 2010 to 2019. A majority of patients (55%) were older than 64 years, with the next most commonly implanted age group being 0 to 4 years of age (14%). From 2010 to 2019, annual CI increased at a rate of 7.9% per year for all implantation over the study period ( r = 0.97, p < 0.0001); there was a statistically significant difference of this rate compared with tympanoplasty, which was used as a reference procedure (rate, -1.9%; p = 0.03). This trend was similar for beneficiaries implanted both in military (11.9% per year, r = 0.77, p = 0.009) and civilian facilities (7.7% per year, r = 0.96, p < 0.0001); there was no statistically significant difference between the annual growth rates of these groups ( p = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the number of devices implanted is rapidly increasing among DoD beneficiaries, reported national utilization rates remain low. This disparity likely exists in the general public, considering the aging demographic in the West and continual expansions in US Federal Drug Administration labeling. These data suggest that widespread expansion of the procedure to general otolaryngology practices will be required to meet current and future demands for CI. For this reason, CI should be considered for "key indicator" designation among residency training programs.

Perceptions Surrounding Cochlear Implants Among At-Risk and Qualifying Older Adults in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Limited evidence to date has examined public perceptions of cochlear implants among adult hearing aid users with moderate to profound hearing loss. The current work was conceived with the chief objective of characterizing the perceptions surrounding cochlear implants among the prospective candidate pool.

STUDY DESIGN

National cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Adults between 50 and 80 years of age with self-reported moderate to moderately severe (n = 200) or moderately severe to profound (n = 200) hearing loss currently using hearing aids.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 12%. Median age at time of survey for the 400 respondents was 66 years (interquartile range, 60-71 yr) and included 215 (54%) men. In total, 26% did not think of hearing loss as a medical condition, and another 23% were unsure. Overall, 63% of respondents had heard of cochlear implants, but only 2% indicated they were very familiar with them. Despite 52% of respondents reporting "very positive" or "somewhat positive" feelings about cochlear implants, only 9% indicated they were "very likely" to get a cochlear implant in the future, including 7% of those with estimated moderately severe to profound hearing loss at time of survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Even among people with presumed qualifying levels of hearing loss, there exists a widespread lack of familiarity with cochlear implantation as a viable treatment option. This limited awareness seems influenced by a generally poor appreciation for hearing loss as a chronic disease state that warrants treatment. However, among those familiar with cochlear implants, they are generally viewed favorably.

Effects of an evidence-based model for cochlear implant aftercare delivery on clinical efficiency and patient outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To assess an evidence-based model (EBM) approach to cochlear implant (CI) aftercare that includes a modified, reduced treatment schedule for newly-implanted adult CI recipients consisting of four appointments (initial activation, 1-, 3- and 6- months postactivation) in the first year post-surgery.

METHOD

This prospective multicenter proof-of-concept study was conducted across three clinics in the United States by five experienced CI clinicians. Seventeen newly-implanted adult patients with postlingual hearing loss enrolled in the study. Hearing outcomes were measured using objective speech testing and subjective self-report measures.

RESULTS

Most recipients (14/17; 82%) were able to follow the four-appointment EBM schedule. The reduced number of visits translated into an average time savings of 3 hours per patient. Significant improvements in speech perception were observed at both 3- and 6-months postactivation, as measured by CNC words in quiet and AzBio sentences at +10 dB SNR, consistent with published results achieved by traditional practices. Recipients were significantly satisfied with telephone, music, small group conversation, and television listening at 6 months postactivation. Recipient satisfaction with overall service was rated as "excellent" by 14/14 (100%) respondents.

CONCLUSION

The four-appointment EBM approach delivered efficient and effective audiological aftercare to CI recipients in the first year following CI implantation.

Association between insurance status and hearing healthcare use in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Despite the high prevalence and morbidity of hearing loss, many individuals with hearing loss do not have access to hearing healthcare. This study aims to assess the relationship between insurance status and prior audiogram, and hearing aid use among subjects with hearing loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study of the 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2015-16 cycles of the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) included 5270 adult subjects 18 years or older with subjective or audiometric hearing loss. Subjects were stratified by insurance: Medicare, Medicaid, private, uninsured, and 'other or unspecified'.

RESULTS

After adjusting for covariates, among subjects with audiometric hearing loss, prior audiogram was not associated with insurance type, including no insurance (OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.45 to 1.42), Medicare (OR 1.34, 95 % CI 0.69 to 2.59), Medicaid (OR 1.27, 95 % CI 0.55 to 2.93), or 'other or unspecified' (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 0.67 to 4.47). Hearing aid use was not associated with insurance type, including no insurance (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.03 to 1.29), Medicare (OR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.27 to 1.14), Medicaid (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 0.47 to 8.71), or 'other or unspecified' (OR 1.76, 95 % CI 0.59 to 5.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Health insurance status was not associated with hearing healthcare use in our nationally-representative sample of individuals with hearing loss. Given variations in hearing coverage by Medicaid between states, future studies should compare the impact of Medicaid insurance on hearing aid use between states that cover hearing aids and those that do not.

A country-wide health policy in Chile for deaf adults using cochlear implants: Analysis of health determinants and social impacts

BACKGROUND

Post-lingual deafness represents a critical challenge for adults' well-being with substantial public health burdens. One treatment of choice has been cochlear implants (CI) for people with severe to profound hearing loss (HL). Since 2018, Chile has implemented a high-cost policy to cover CI treatment, the "Ley Ricarte Soto" (LRS) health policy. However, wide variability exists in the use of this device. To date, no related study has been published on policy evaluation in Chile or other Latin American countries.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the LRS policy on the treatment success and labour market inclusion among deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) adults using CI. We examined and characterised outcomes based on self-reports about treatment success and occupation status between 2018 and 2020.

DESIGN

We performed a prospective study using hospital clinical records and an online questionnaire with 76 DHH adults aged >15 who had received CIs since the introduction of the LRS policy in 2018. Using univariate and multivariate regression models, we investigated the relationship between demographic, audiological, and social determinants of health and outcomes, including treatment success for social inclusion (International Outcome inventory for Hearing Aids and CIs assessment: IOI-HA) and occupation status for labour market inclusion.

RESULTS

Our study showed elevated levels of treatment success in most of the seven sub-scores of the IOI-HA assessment. Similarly, around 70% of participants maintained or improved their occupations after receiving their CI. We found a significant positive association between treatment success and market inclusion. Participants diagnosed at younger ages had better results than older participants in both outcomes. Regarding social determinants of health, findings suggested participants with high social health insurance and a shorter commute time to the clinic had better results in treatment success. For labour market inclusion, participants with high education levels and better pre- CI occupation had better post-CI occupation status.

CONCLUSIONS

In evaluating the LRS policy for providing CIs for DHH adults in Chile, we found positive effects relating to treatment success and occupation status. Our study supports the importance of age at diagnosis and social determinants of health, which should be assessed by integrating public services and bringing them geographically closer to each beneficiary. Although evidence-based guidelines for candidate selection given by the LRS policy might contribute to good results, these guidelines could limit the policy access to people who do not meet the requirements of the guidelines due to social inequalities.

Preliminary Evidence to Support a De-Escalated Cochlear Implant Programming Paradigm for New Adult Recipients: A Systematic Review

Background: No standard schedule for cochlear implant (CI) programming has been developed, and common practices may have CI recipients seen in excess of what is necessary. The objective of this study was to review evidence for a de-escalated, evidence-based schedule for adult CI programming. Methods: Systematic review was undertaken in March 2023 of PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if (1) they evaluated an evidence-based programming/follow-up schedule in new adult CI patients or (2) they evaluated programming or outcomes in a longitudinal fashion such that they could inform CI follow-up strategies. Level of evidence was evaluated using the LEGEND evidence assessment tool. Results: Our review identified 940 studies. After screening with a priori inclusion criteria, 18 studies were ultimately included in this review. Of these, 2 demonstrated feasibility of de-escalated approaches to new adult CI programming. The remainder presented longitudinal speech and programming parameter data that demonstrated relative stability of both categories by 3 to 6 months post-activation. Conclusions: Overall, there is a paucity of literature evaluating any form of evidence-based CI programming or follow-up. Most applicable data derive from longitudinal outcomes featured in studies of other CI features, with only a handful of studies directly evaluating CI programming strategies over time. However, stability in outcomes and programming detailed in the available data supports consideration of a de-escalated programming paradigm that could primarily limit programming to the very early post-activation period (before 3 to 6 months) to enhance patient care and reduce operational strains on cochlear implant programs.

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

OBJECTIVE

To develop a machine learning-based referral guideline for patients undergoing cochlear implant candidacy evaluation (CICE) and to compare with the widely used 60/60 guideline.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

772 adults undergoing CICE from 2015 to 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Variables included demographics, unaided thresholds, and word recognition score. A random forest classification model was trained on patients undergoing CICE, and bootstrap cross-validation was used to assess the modeling approach's performance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The machine learning-based referral tool was evaluated against the 60/60 guideline based on ability to identify CI candidates under traditional and expanded criteria.

RESULTS

Of 587 patients with complete data, 563 (96%) met candidacy at our center, and the 60/60 guideline identified 512 (87%) patients. In the random forest model, word recognition score; thresholds at 3000, 2000, and 125; and age at CICE had the largest impact on candidacy (mean decrease in Gini coefficient, 2.83, 1.60, 1.20, 1.17, and 1.16, respectively). The 60/60 guideline had a sensitivity of 0.91, a specificity of 0.42, and an accuracy of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.91). The random forest model obtained higher sensitivity (0.96), specificity (1.00), and accuracy (0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.98). Across 1,000 bootstrapped iterations, the model yielded a median sensitivity of 0.92 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.85-0.98), specificity of 1.00 (IQR, 0.88-1.00), accuracy of 0.93 (IQR, 0.85-0.97), and area under the curve of 0.96 (IQR, 0.93-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel machine learning-based screening model is highly sensitive, specific, and accurate in predicting CI candidacy. Bootstrapping confirmed that this approach is potentially generalizable with consistent results.

Incidence of Cochlear Implantation Among Adult Candidates in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the associations of age and year of cochlear implantation (CI) with CI incidence among adults 20 years and older residing in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

Deidentified cochlear implant data were acquired from prospective patient registries from two cochlear implant manufacturers (Cochlear Americas and Advanced Bionics), which supply an estimated 85% of cochlear implants in the US. Population estimates for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss by age group were extracted from Census and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data.

SETTING

US CI centers.

PATIENTS

Adults 20 years and older who underwent CI.

INTERVENTIONS

CI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CI incidence.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 30,066 adults 20 years and older who underwent CI from 2015 to 2019. When combining actual and estimated data from all three manufacturers, the annual number of cochlear implants increased 5,406 in 2015 to 8,509 in 2019. Overall, the incidence of CI among adult traditional (bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss) CI candidates increased from 244 per 100,000 person-years in 2015 to 350 in 2019 ( p < 0.001). Although the elderly (80 years and older) population had the lowest incidence of CI, this cohort experienced the largest growth from an incidence of 105 per 100,000 person-years to 202 during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite growing incidence among those with qualifying hearing loss, cochlear implants remain widely underutilized. Elderly adults continue to exhibit the lowest relative cochlear implant utilization rates; however, trends over the last half-decade suggest a shift has occurred, resulting in improved access among this underserved subset.

Impact of Patient Frailty on Speech Recognition and Quality of Life Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVE

The process of cochlear implantation (CI) and subsequent post-cochlear implant care is extensive and can be difficult to navigate for patients considered medically frail. This study investigates potential impact of patient frailty on speech recognition and quality of life outcomes after CI.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTING

Tertiary cochlear implant center.

PATIENTS

Three hundred seventy adults undergoing CI for traditional bilateral hearing loss indication.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of pre-CI to 12-month post-CI change in consonant-nucleus-consonant phoneme/words, AzBio sentences in quiet/+10SNR, and Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile domain and global scores based on degree of patient frailty as assessed using the five-factor modified frailty index and Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

The average age at implantation was 65.4 years (±SD, 15.7; 19-94 years). Overall, there were minimal to absent and nonsignificant differences in speech recognition outcomes (consonant-nucleus-consonant phoneme/words, and AzBio sentences +10SNR) based on pre-CI patient frailty. The exception was less improvement in AzBio quiet sentence score in patients noted to be severely frail based on Charlson Comorbidity Index (57.1% vs. 35.2%, d = 0.7 [0.3, 1]). Similar findings were observed for CIQOL-35 Profile domain and global scores where no associations were found other than decreased improvement in the social domain in patients noted to be severely frail (21.7 vs. -0.3, d = 1 [0.4, 1.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although some differences in outcomes were noted based on cochlear implant user frailty, these were small and isolated to only a few outcome measures. Therefore, assuming the patient is medically safe for surgery, preoperative frailty should not dissuade clinicians from recommending CI.

Age and Incidence of Cochlear Implantation in the Pediatric Population With Congenital Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVES

The current study characterizes age and incidence of cochlear implantation among qualifying children with congenital bilateral profound hearing loss in the U.S.

STUDY DESIGN

Deidentified cochlear implantation data were acquired from prospectively collected patient registries from two cochlear implant (CI) manufacturers (Cochlear Americas and Advanced Bionics). Children <36 months old were assumed to have congenital bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss.

SETTING

U.S. CI centers.

PATIENTS

Children <36 months old who received CIs.

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Age at implantation and incidence.

RESULTS

A total of 4,236 children <36 months old underwent cochlear implantation from 2015 to 2019. The median age at implantation was 16 months (interquartile range, 12-24 mo) and did not change significantly during the 5-year study period (p = 0.09). Patients residing closer to CI centers (p = 0.03) and treated at higher-volume centers (p = 0.008) underwent implantation at a younger age. Bilateral simultaneous implantation increased from 38% to 53% of CI surgeries in 2015 and 2019, respectively. Children who received bilateral simultaneous CIs were younger compared with those receiving unilateral or bilateral sequential CIs (median, 14 versus 18 mo; p < 0.001). The incidence of cochlear implantation increased from 7,648 per 100,000 person-years in 2015 to 9,344 in 2019 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although the incidence of pediatric CI recipients and the frequency of bilateral simultaneous implantation increased over the study period, age at implantation did not change significantly and far exceeded current Food and Drug Administration (9 mo) and American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery position statement (6-12 mo) guidelines.

Effect of a Global Pandemic on Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implantation across the United States

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on national cochlear implantation utilization by age using inclusive cochlear implantation data from two manufacturers between 2015 and 2020.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of prospectively registered consecutive patient data from two major cochlear implant (CI) manufacturers in the United States.

PATIENTS

Children or adults who received CIs.

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Annual implantation utilization by age.

RESULTS

A total of 46,804 patients received CIs from the two participating manufacturers between 2015 and 2020. The annual number of implant recipients increased significantly during the first 5 years of the study period for both children and adults, from a total of 6,203 in 2015 to 9,213 in 2019 (p < 0.001). During 2020, there was a 13.1% drop in national cochlear implantation utilization across all ages compared with 2019, including a drop of 2.2% for those ≤3 years old, 3.8% for those 4-17 years old, 10.1% for those 18-64 years old, 16.6% for those 65-79 years old, and 22.5% for those ≥80 years old. In a multivariable linear regression model, the percent drop in CIs differed significantly by age-group (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Especially in light of the prepandemic projected CI counts for 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced national cochlear implantation utilization by over 15% among Medicare-aged patients and by almost 25% among those ≥80 years old, resulting in more than a 3-year setback in total annual CIs. Children were less affected, with those ≤3 years old experiencing minimal interruption during 2020.

Impact of Sociodemographic Disparities on Language Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in a Diverse Pediatric Cohort

OBJECTIVE

We examined how sociodemographic and audiologic factors affect receptive and expressive language outcomes in children with cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A hearing loss (HL) clinic at a tertiary center.

METHODS

Sociodemographic variables, HL characteristics, age at implantation, and receptive language scores (Preschool Language Scale and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals) were collected from patients with congenital HL who received their first implant by 4 years old after January 1, 2007. t Tests, linear regression, Mann-Whitney, Cohen's d, and mediation analysis were used for descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

Among 79 patients, 42 (53%) were females, 44 (56%) under-represented minorities, and 56 (71%) had public insurance. At least 1 year after implantation, the median receptive language score was 69 (range 50-117). Females (p = .005), having private insurance (p = .00001), having a Cochlear Implant Profile score below 4 (p = .0001), and receiving their implant at or before 12 months of age (p = .0009) were significantly associated with improved receptive language outcomes. Insurance type had a significant effect on receptive language outcomes, independent from age at first implantation (total effect: coef = -13.00, p = .02; direct effect: coef = -12.26, p = .03; indirect effect: coef = -0.75, p = .47). Sociodemographic variables had large effect sizes, with the Cochlear Implant Profile score having the largest effect size (d = 1.3).

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors have a large impact on receptive language outcomes. Public insurance is associated with worse receptive language, not mediated by later age at implantation, suggesting that other factors primarily impact language outcomes in publicly insured children with cochlear implants.

Cochlear Implant Awareness in the United States: A National Survey of 15,138 Adults

Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a chronic disease that warrants treatment. Depression, social isolation, loneliness, and poorer cognitive performance have all been linked to untreated and undertreated adult-onset hearing loss. A significant subset of the patient population with hearing loss is inadequately rehabilitated by hearing aids alone and may benefit from cochlear implantation. Yet, it is estimated that less than 10% of those who qualify have received implants to date. A national survey was conducted online in November and December 2021. Subjects were identified using Dynata panelists and river sampling. Enrollment occurred on a rolling basis. Upfront sample management techniques were used to control the distribution, balancing the respondent cohort to the 2018 U.S. Census on age, household income, sex, marital status, household size, race/ethnicity, and education. Among 15,138 adult respondents with a mean (SD) age of 51 (17) years (54% female), only 10% reported being very familiar with cochlear implants, and 31% of those with hearing difficulty reported that they have “never heard” of a cochlear implant. Females were statistically significantly more likely to report some degree of familiarity with cochlear implants than men (34 vs. 26%; p  < 0.01). The greatest familiarity with cochlear implants was observed among those aged 35 to 44 years (18% reporting “very familiar”), whereas only 9% of those aged 65 to 74, 10% aged 75 to 84, and 8% ≥85 reported being very familiar ( p  < 0.01). Those identifying as White/Caucasian were statistically significantly more likely to report familiarity with cochlear implants than those identifying as Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino/Spanish (33 vs. 56 vs. 50% responding that they had “never heard” of cochlear implants; p  < 0.01). Among adults with hearing difficulty, nearly 80% report having never talked with a medical or hearing care professional about cochlear implants. Limited cochlear implant awareness likely influences its widespread underutilization across the United States. Sex, age, and race disparities compound these issues among men, the Medicare-aged population, and those identifying as Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino/Spanish.

Do Not Go Gentle into That Deaf Night: A Holistic Perspective on Cochlear Implant Use as Part of Healthy Aging

Research suggests that cochlear implant (CI) use in elderly people improves speech perception and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). CI provision could also prevent dementia and other comorbidities and support healthy aging. The aim of this study was (1) to prospectively investigate potential changes in HRQOL and speech perception and (2) to identify clinical action points to improve CI treatment. Participants (n = 45) were CI recipients aged 60-90 with postlingual deafness. They were divided into groups, according to age: Group 1 (n = 20) received a CI between the age of 60-70 years; group 2 (n = 25) between the age of 71-90 years. HRQOL and speech perception were assessed preoperatively, and three and twelve months postoperatively. HRQOL and speech perception increased significantly within one year postoperatively in both groups. No difference between groups was found. We conclude that CI treatment improves speech perception and HRQOL in elderly users. Improvement of the referral process for CI treatment and a holistic approach when discussing CI treatment in the elderly population could prevent auditory deprivation and the deterioration of cognitive abilities.

A Five-Year Update on the Profile of Adults Undergoing Cochlear Implant Evaluation and Surgery-Are We Doing Better?

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the influence of expanding indications on the profile of adults undergoing cochlear implantation (CI) at a high-volume CI center.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

774 adults undergoing CI evaluation from August 2015 to August 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics; audiometry; speech recognition; speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ-12).

RESULTS

Of 745 (96.3%) patients qualifying for implantation, 642 (86.6%) pursued surgery. Median age at evaluation was 69 years; 56.3% were men; 88.2% were Caucasian. Median distance to our center was 95 miles. The majority (51.8%) had public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), followed by private (47.8%) and military (0.4%). Mean PTA, CNC, and AzBio in quiet and noise for the ear to be implanted were 85.2 dB HL, 15.0%, and 19.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Hybrid/EAS criteria were met by 138 (18.5%) CI candidates, and 436 (77.0%) unilateral CI recipients had aidable contralateral hearing for bimodal hearing configurations. Younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.99) and non-Caucasian race (OR, 6.95; 95% confidence interval, 3.22-14.98) predicted candidacy. Likelihood of surgery increased for Caucasian (OR, 8.08; 95% confidence interval, 4.85-13.47) and married (OR, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-3.47) patients and decreased for those with public insurance (OR, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.69). A lower SSQ-12 score predicted both candidacy and surgery.

CONCLUSION

Despite expansions in criteria, speech understanding remained extremely low at CI evaluation. Younger age and non-Caucasian race predicted candidacy, and Caucasian, married patients with private insurance and lower SSQ scores were more likely to pursue surgery.

Geographic Variations in Medicare Cochlear Implantations in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe national practice patterns and detail geographic and temporal changes in cochlear implantations (CIs) in the Medicare population.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Medicare B Public Use Files.

PATIENTS

Medicare B fee-for-service patients who underwent CI from 2012 to 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implantations (Current Procedural Terminology code 69930).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Medicare Part B Public Use Files were used to identify all individual providers who performed CIs from 2012 to 2019. The total number of CIs performed annually was calculated for hospital referral regions (HRRs) as well as U.S. census regions to describe geographic variations and changes over the study period. Average Medicare reimbursement rates were tabulated.

RESULTS

From 2012 of 2019, the number of CIs performed in the Medicare population increased from 1,239 to 2,429, representing a 96.0% increase. In each of the four U.S. census regions, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of CIs performed over the study period. However, of 306 HRR in the United States, cochlear implants were performed in only 117 (38.2%), with the median number of CIs in each HRRs 16.7 (interquartile range, 13-24.2) per year. The median weighted average Medicare reimbursement was $1205.49 (interquartile range, 1161.65-1253.46).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of CIs in the Medicare population has increased from 2012 to 2019. However, widespread geographic variations continue to persist in the United States and represent opportunities toward identifying and acting on the etiologies of persistent disparities in CI.

Conversations in Cochlear Implantation: The Inner Ear Therapy of Today

As biomolecular approaches for hearing restoration in profound sensorineural hearing loss evolve, they will be applied in conjunction with or instead of cochlear implants. An understanding of the current state-of-the-art of this technology, including its advantages, disadvantages, and its potential for delivering and interacting with biomolecular hearing restoration approaches, is helpful for designing modern hearing-restoration strategies. Cochlear implants (CI) have evolved over the last four decades to restore hearing more effectively, in more people, with diverse indications. This evolution has been driven by advances in technology, surgery, and healthcare delivery. Here, we offer a practical treatise on the state of cochlear implantation directed towards developing the next generation of inner ear therapeutics. We aim to capture and distill conversations ongoing in CI research, development, and clinical management. In this review, we discuss successes and physiological constraints of hearing with an implant, common surgical approaches and electrode arrays, new indications and outcome measures for implantation, and barriers to CI utilization. Additionally, we compare cochlear implantation with biomolecular and pharmacological approaches, consider strategies to combine these approaches, and identify unmet medical needs with cochlear implants. The strengths and weaknesses of modern implantation highlighted here can mark opportunities for continued progress or improvement in the design and delivery of the next generation of inner ear therapeutics.