Barriers to early cochlear implantation

Factors that influence health service access in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Early diagnosis and intervention of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children leads to improved language and psychosocial outcomes. However, many child, parent and provider related factors can influence access to early intervention services, including hearing devices. This narrative review aims to explore factors that influence health service access in DHH children.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted to identify articles that explored factors that influenced health service access in DHH children in countries with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, published between 2010 and 2022.

STUDY SAMPLES

Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. This included 4 systematic reviews, 2 reviews, 39 quantitative and 5 mixed methods studies and 9 qualitative studies.

RESULTS

The identified factors were grouped into the following themes: (a) demographic factors, (b) family related factors, (c) child related factors, (d) factors specific to hearing devices, (e) service delivery, f) telehealth and (g) COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

This review provided a comprehensive summary of multiple factors that affect access to health services in DHH children. Psychosocial support, consistent clinical advice, allocation of resources to rural communities and use of telehealth are possible ways to address barriers and improve health service access.

Early Postoperative Benefits in Receptive and Expressive Language Development After Cochlear Implantation Under 9 Months of Age in Comparison to Implantation at Later Ages

OBJECTIVES

The recent expansion of eligibility for cochlear implantation (CI) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to include infants as young as 9 months has reignited debates concerning the clinically appropriate cut-off age for pediatric CI. Our study compared the early postoperative trajectories of receptive and expressive language development in children who received CI before 9 months of age with those who received it between 9 and 12 months. This study involved a unique pediatric cohort with documented etiology, where the timing of CI was based on objective criteria and efforts were made to minimize the influence of parental socioeconomic status.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 98 pediatric implantees recruited at a tertiary referral center was conducted. The timing of CI was based on auditory and language criteria focused on the extent of delay corresponding to the bottom 1st percentile of language development among age-matched controls, with patients categorized into very early (CI at <9 months), early (CI at 9-12 months) and delayed (CI at 12-18 months) CI groups. Postoperative receptive/expressive language development was assessed using the Sequenced Language Scale for Infants receptive and expressive standardized scores and percentiles.

RESULTS

Only the very early CI group showed significant improvements in receptive language starting at 3 months post-CI, aligning with normal-hearing peers by 9 months and maintaining this level until age 2 years. During this period (<2 years), all improvements were more pronounced in receptive language than in expressive language.

CONCLUSION

CI before 9 months of age significantly improved receptive language development compared to later CI, with improvements sustained at least up to the age of 2. This study supports the consideration of earlier CI, beyond pediatric Food and Drug Administration labeling criteria (>9 months), in children with profound deafness who have a clear deafness etiology and language development delays (<1st percentile).

Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses in Children Fitted with Hearing Aids Prior to Cochlear Implantation

This study investigates the effect of hearing aid use on the peripheral auditory pathways in children with sensorineural hearing loss prior to cochlear implantation, as revealed by the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR). Forty children with hearing aids were recruited. Half of them had normal inner ear structures and the other half had inner ear malformations (IEMs). The EABR was evoked by electrically stimulating the round window niche (RWN) and round window membrane (RWM) during the cochlear implantation operation. The onset age of hearing aid use was significantly correlated with the peak latencies, but not amplitudes, of the wave III (eIII) and wave V (eV). Higher EABR thresholds were found for RWN stimulation than for RWM stimulation and in the children with IEMs than in those without IEMs. Our study provides neurophysiological evidence that earlier use of hearing aids may ameliorate physiological functions of the peripheral auditory pathway in children with and without IEMs. The EABR evoked by the electrical stimulation at RWM is more sensitive compared with that at RWN for evaluating functions of the auditory conduction pathway.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

This article summarizes the available evidence on pediatric cochlear implantation to provide current guidelines for clinical protocols and candidacy recommendations in the United States. Candidacy determination involves specification of audiologic and medical criteria per guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration. However, recommendations for a cochlear implant evaluation also should maintain flexibility and consider a child’s skill progression (i.e., month-for-month progress in speech, language, and auditory development) and quality of life with appropriately fit hearing aids. Moreover, evidence supports medical and clinical decisions based on other factors, including (a) ear-specific performance, which affords inclusion of children with asymmetric hearing loss and single-sided deafness as implant candidates; (b) ear-specific residual hearing, which influences surgical technique and device selection to optimize hearing; and (c) early intervention to minimize negative long-term effects on communication and quality of life related to delayed identification of implant candidacy, later age at implantation, and/or limited commitment to an audiologic rehabilitation program. These evidence-based guidelines for current clinical protocols in determining pediatric cochlear implant candidacy encourage a team-based approach focused on the whole child and the family system.

Defining Disparities in Cochlear Implantation through the Social Determinants of Health

Hearing loss is a global public health problem with high prevalence and profound impacts on health. Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-established evidence-based treatment for hearing loss; however, there are significant disparities in utilization, access, and clinical outcomes among different populations. While variations in CI outcomes are influenced by innate biological differences, a wide array of social, environmental, and economic factors significantly impact optimal outcomes. These differences in hearing health are rooted in inequities of health-related socioeconomic resources. To define disparities and advance equity in CI, there is a pressing need to understand and target these social factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which include the following domains: healthcare access/quality, education access/quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and physical environment. This article defines these domains in the context of CI and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains. Further consideration is given to how these factors can influence equity in CI and how to incorporate this information in the evaluation and management of patients receiving cochlear implants.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Access and Use: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric cochlear implantation (CI) is a multistep process, which exposes a healthcare system's potential weaknesses in ability to deliver timely care to deaf children. The current systematic review aims to determine the sociodemographic disparities that predict pediatric CI access and use among CI candidates and recipients across the world. We hypothesize that sociodemographic factors independently influence CI access and use within a given country.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases was conducted for studies investigating the association of sociodemographic factors such as race, income, or insurance status with measures of pediatric CI access, such as age at CI or CI rate.

RESULTS

Out of 807 unique abstracts initially retrieved, 39 papers were included in the final qualitative systematic review. Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-one CI-candidate children (6,623 CI recipients) were studied in 14 countries, with 21 studies conducted in the United States of America, published within the years of 1993 to 2020.

CONCLUSION

Some measures of CI access, such as age at CI and rates of CI, are consistently reported in the CI disparities literature while others such as access to rehabilitation services, willingness to undergo CI, and daily CI use are rarely measured. There are persistently reported disparities in a few key measures of CI access in a few populations, while there are some populations with a paucity of data. Future studies should delineate the nuances in the mechanisms of disparities by conducting multivariable analysis of representative sample data. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Identification of Potential Barriers to Timely Access to Pediatric Hearing Aids

Importance

Despite various barriers identified to early pediatric access to cochlear implantation, barriers to timely access to pediatric hearing aids are not well characterized.

Objective

To identify socioeconomic, demographic, and clinical factors that may be associated with pediatric access to hearing aids.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included 90 patients aged 1 to 15 years who were referred for auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing and evaluation for hearing aids at a single tertiary care academic medical center from March 2004 to July 2018. Children who did not receive both ABR testing and hearing aids at the same center were excluded from analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Associations of insurance type (private vs public), race/ethnicity (white vs other), primary language (English vs other), cause of hearing loss (complex vs not complex), zip code, hearing aid manufacturer, and severity of hearing loss (in decibels) with the duration of intervals from newborn hearing screening to ABR testing, from ABR testing to ordering of hearing aids, and from ABR testing to dispensing of hearing aids.

Results

Of the 90 patients, mean (SD) age was 5.6 (3.7) years, 56% were female, and 77 (86%) were non-Hispanic. Results of χ2 tests indicated significant assocations existed between public insurance and race/ethnicity and between public insurance and primary language other than English. Variables associated with the interval from newborn hearing screening to ABR testing included insurance type (mean difference, 7.4 months; 95% CI, 2.6-12.2 months) and race/ethnicity (mean difference, 6.9 months; 95% CI, 2.7-11.1 months). Increased delays between birth and a child's first ABR test were associated with public insurance (mean difference, 6.0 months; 95% CI, 1.8-10.2 months) and race/ethnicity other than white (mean difference, 6.0 months; 95% CI, 2.3-9.7 months). The mean time from birth to initial ABR testing was a mean of 6 months longer for patients from non-English-speaking families than for those from English-speaking families (mean [SD] interval, 14.9 [16.3] months vs 9.0 [8.5] months), although the difference was not statistically significant. Severity of hearing loss was associated with a decrease in the interval from ABR testing to ordering of hearing aids after accounting for other potential barriers (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9). Zip code and complexity of the child's medical condition did not appear to be associated with timely access to pediatric hearing aids.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's findings suggest that insurance type, race/ethnicity, and primary language may be barriers associated with pediatric access to hearing aids, with the greatest difference observed in time to initial ABR testing. Clinical severity of hearing loss appeared to be associated with a significant decrease in time from ABR testing to ordering of hearing aids. Greater efforts to assist parents with ABR testing and coordination of follow-up may help improve access for other at-risk children.

Cochlear Implantation in Infants: Why and How

In children with congenital deafness, cochlear implantation (CI) prior to 12 months of age offers the opportunity to foster more typical auditory development during late infancy and early childhood. Recent studies have found a positive association between early implantation and expressive and receptive language outcomes, with some children able to achieve normal language skills by the time of school entry. Universal newborn hearing screening improved early detection and diagnosis of congenital hearing loss, allowing for earlier intervention, including decision-making regarding cochlear implant (CI) candidacy. It can be more challenging to confirm CI candidacy in infants; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach, including objective audiometric testing, is recommended to not only confirm the diagnosis but also to counsel families regarding expectations and long-term management. Surgeons performing CI surgery in young children should consider both the anesthetic risks of surgery in infancy and the ways in which mastoid anatomy may differ between infants and older children or adults. Multiple studies have found CI surgery in infants can be performed safely and effectively. This article reviews current evidence regarding indications for implantation in children younger than 12 months of age and discusses perioperative considerations and surgical technique.

Relationship Between Objective and Behavioral Audiology for Young Children Being Assessed for Cochlear Implantation: Implications for CI Candidacy Assessment

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of making cochlear implant recommendations based on diagnostic ABR and ASSR results. The goal was to challenge the need for behavioral audiometry as part of the standard cochlear implant assessment battery for infants with profound hearing loss and to reduce the age at which cochlear implant recommendation was made.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of 123 patient files for children referred to the pediatric cochlear implant service before 3 years of age over a 3-year period was undertaken. Results for click-ABR, ASSR, and behavioral audiology at 500, 1k, 2k and 4k Hz, and tympanometry were collected and relationships were investigated for 64 children who met the inclusion criteria. Data were excluded for 59 children due to the presence of auditory neuropathy findings, middle ear pathology at the time of testing, if ASSR was not assessed at intensity levels >85 dB, and/or behavioral testing was judged to be unreliable by two experienced clinicians.

SETTING

Primary care pediatric cochlear implant program located within a hospital setting.

PATIENTS

Pediatric patients referred for cochlear implant evaluation before 3 years of age.

INTERVENTIONS(S)

Children were assessed using ABR, ASSR, and behavioral audiometry for identification and confirmation of hearing loss.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S)

Correlation between diagnostic click-ABR and ASSR thresholds and subsequently obtained behavioral hearing thresholds.

RESULTS

Results for objective measures (click-ABR and ASSR) were significantly correlated with behavioral results. The correlations, however, were poorer than expected with limited predictive value. For 6 of the 64 children click-ABR and/or ASSR suggested profound hearing loss and corresponding behavioral hearing threshold was found to be in the severe hearing loss range.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this study do not support making cochlear implant recommendations based on the findings of diagnostic click-ABR and ASSR alone. Investigating ways to reduce the average age children with severe-to-profound hearing loss receive a cochlear implant is a priority for the study institution. An alternate evaluation pathway for infants which incorporates a multifaceted assessment is warranted and will be the focus of future work at the study institution.

Trends in sociodemographic disparities of pediatric cochlear implantation over a 15-year period

OBJECTIVE

Sociodemographic disparities of cochlear implantation in children have been reported. This study sought to determine if disparities in children receiving cochlear implants have narrowed, widened or remained constant.

METHODS

Children 18 years or younger who underwent cochlear implantation from 1997 to 2012 were selected using the Kids' Inpatient Database. Demographic data included primary insurance payer, income quartile and race. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to determine if trends were significant. Prevalence rates of cochlear implantation by race were generated. A Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the rates of cochlear implantation within each racial group.

RESULTS

The proportion of children receiving cochlear implants with private insurance decreased from 79.3% to 42.6% (p < .0001), whereas children with Medicaid increased from 17.4% to 35.2% (p < .0001). Proportion of implanted children from the lowest two income quartiles increased from 15.5% to 24.4% (p < .0001) and 10.3%-21.8% (p < .0035), respectively. Rates of implantation among children from income quartile four decreased from 50.9% to 35.3% (p < .0001). White children were implanted twice as often as Black or Hispanic children (p = .007 and p = .0012 respectively). Asian children were implanted more than twice as often as Black or Hispanic Children (p = .0154 and p = .0098 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Income and insurance disparities have narrowed within the inpatient pediatric cochlear implantation cohort. Racial disparities still exist. White and Asian children are implanted at higher rates than Black or Hispanic children.

Longitudinal Tracking of Sound Exposure and Hearing Aid Usage through Objective Data Logs

Objective To use data-logging technology to objectively track and identify predictors of hearing aid (HA) usage and aided sound exposure. Study Design Case series with planned data collection. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Subjects and Methods Individuals with HAs between 2007 and 2016 were included (N = 431; mean, 74.6 years; 95% CI, 73.1-76.0). Data-logging technology intrinsic to new-generation HAs was enabled to track usage and sound exposure. With multivariable linear regression, age, sex, number of audiology visits, duration of audiologic follow-up, pure tone average, and HA side were assessed as predictors of usage (hours/day) and aided sound exposure (dB-hours/day; ie, "dose" of sound per day). Results Mean follow-up was 319 days (95% CI, 277-360). Mean HA usage was 8.4 hours/day (95% CI, 8.0-8.8; N = 431). Mean aided sound exposure was 440 dB-hours/day (95% CI, 385-493; n = 110). HA use (β < 0.001, P = .45) and aided sound exposure (β = -0.006, P = .87) were both stable over time. HA usage was associated only with hearing loss level (pure tone average; β = 0.030, P = .04). Aided sound exposure was associated only with duration of audiologic follow-up (β = 0.100, P = .02). Conclusion While measurement of HA use has traditionally relied on subjective reporting, data logging offers an objective tool to longitudinally track HA use and sound exposure. We demonstrate the feasibility of using this potentially powerful research tool. Usage and sound exposure were stable among patients throughout the study period. Use was greater among subjects with greater hearing loss. Maximizing aided sound exposure might be possible through continued audiology follow-up visits.

Cochlear implantation in children under 12 months of age

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Children with congenital hearing loss are being identified earlier, leading to earlier intervention. Current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria states a child must be 12 months or older for cochlear implantation. The purpose of this article is to review recent publications regarding the benefits of implanting infants under 12 months of age. Topics include: safety and efficacy of surgery, speech and language acquisition outcomes, audiologic components, and limitations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the early 1990s, the candidacy criteria evolved drastically. However, the FDA criteria for cochlear implantation in children has remained at 12 months of age or older since 2000. Recent research indicates implanting below 12 months of age a safe and effective procedure. Speech and language outcomes showed better speech and language advantages. In addition, infants implanted earlier showed normal auditory skills as early as 3 months post cochlear implant activation. This article will also address recent findings on the limitations of earlier implantation.

SUMMARY

Recent research demonstrates positive outcomes in children implanted under 12 months of age. Developing research on earlier implantation could lead to a change in the current FDA criteria allowing infants to reach their speech and hearing potential faster.