Functional Status of Hearing Aids in Bilateral-Bimodal Users

An overview of factors affecting bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) speech understanding outcomes

Improvements in device technology, surgical technique, and patient outcomes have resulted in a broadening of cochlear implantation criteria to consider those with increasing levels of useful low-to-mid frequency residual acoustic hearing. Residual acoustic hearing allows for the addition of a hearing aid (HA) to complement the cochlear implant (CI) and has demonstrated enhanced listening outcomes. However, wide inter-subject outcome variability exists and thus identification of contributing factors would be of clinical interest and may aid with pre-operative patient counselling. The optimal fitting procedure and frequency assignments for the two hearing devices used in combination to enhance listening outcomes also remains unclear. The understanding of how acoustic and electric speech information is fundamentally combined and utilised by the listener may allow for the optimisation of device fittings and frequency allocations to provide best bimodal and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) patient outcomes. This article will provide an overview of contributing factors to bimodal and EAS listening outcomes, explore areas of contention, and discuss common study limitations.

Self-assessment of unilateral and bimodal cochlear implant experiences in daily life

Objective

The subjective experiences were assessed of cochlear implant (CI) users either wearing or not wearing a hearing aid (HA) at the contralateral ear.

Design

Unilateral CI-recipients were asked to fill out a set of daily-life questionnaires on bimodal HA use, hearing disability, hearing handicap and general quality of life.

Study sample

Twenty-six CI-recipients who regularly use a contralateral HA (bimodal group) and twenty-two CI-recipients who do not use a HA in the contralateral ear (unilateral group).

Results

Comparisons between both groups (bimodal versus unilateral) showed no difference in self-rated disability, hearing handicap or general quality of life. However within the group of bimodal listeners, participants did report a benefit of bimodal hearing ability in various daily life listening situations.

Conclusions

Bimodal benefit in daily life can consistently be experienced and reported within the group of bimodal users.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bimodal Stimulation Compared to Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Bilateral Severe to Profound Deafness

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of severe-profoundly deaf adult unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users receive bimodal stimulation; that is, they use a conventional acoustic hearing aid (HA) in their nonimplanted ear. The combination of electric and contralateral acoustic hearing provides additional benefits to hearing and also to general health-related quality of life compared with unilateral CI use. Bilateral CI is a treatment alternative to both unilateral CI and bimodal stimulation in some healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of bimodal stimulation compared with other management options for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness.

DESIGN

The economic evaluation took the form of a cost-utility analysis and compared bimodal stimulation (CI+HA) to two treatment alternatives: unilateral and bilateral CI. The analysis used a public healthcare system perspective based on data from the United Kingdom and the United States. Costs and health benefits were identified for both alternatives and estimated across a patient's lifetime using Markov state transition models. Utilities were based on Health Utilities Index estimates, and health outcomes were expressed in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The results were presented using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and the Net Monetary Benefit approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of bimodal stimulation. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the degree of overall uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and analysis of covariance identified parameters to which the model was most sensitive; that is, whose values had a strong influence on the intervention that was determined to be most cost-effective. A value of information analysis was performed to determine the potential value to be gained from additional research on bimodal stimulation.

RESULTS

The base case model showed that bimodal stimulation was the most cost-effective treatment option with a decision certainty of 72 and 67% in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively. Despite producing more QALYs than either unilateral CI or bimodal stimulation, bilateral CI was found not to be cost-effective because it was associated with excessive costs. Compared with unilateral CI, the increased costs of bimodal stimulation were outweighed by the gain in quality of life. Bimodal stimulation was found to cost an extra £174 per person in the United Kingdom ($937 in the US) and yielded an additional 0.114 QALYs compared with unilateral CI, resulting in an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of £1521 per QALY gained in the United Kingdom ($8192/QALY in the United States). The most influential variable was the utility gained from the simultaneous use of both devices (CI+HA) compared with Unilateral CI. The value of further research was £4,383,922 at £20,000/QALY ($86,955,460 at $50,000/QALY in the United States).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of the most cost-effective treatment alternative for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness from publicly funded healthcare perspectives of the United Kingdom and United States. Bimodal stimulation was found to be more cost-effective than unilateral and bilateral CI across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. If there is scope for future research, conducting interventional designs to obtain utilities for bimodal stimulation compared with unilateral CI would reduce decision uncertainty considerably.

Audiologists' preferences in programming cochlear implants: A preliminary report

Background: There is little data available addressing how clinical audiologists handle cochlear implant (CI) programming between device manufacturers and make decisions on related services, particularly in the United States. Objectives: This study sought to understand the techniques and settings professionals use with their patients, how they approach bimodal fitting, which tests they use to evaluate patient and device performance, and their overall preferences of (re)habilitative options. Methods: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to CI audiologists throughout the United States electronically. Results: All respondents reported either always or almost always using Cochlear's default signal processing strategy in contrast to the 64% reported for Med-El and 40% for Advanced Bionics. A trend of less use of electrically evoked stapedial reflex threshold (eSRT) than electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAP) for objective measures was revealed. Higher likelihood of performing speech recognition tests in quiet than in noise was revealed. Preferences for bimodal fitting trend toward using a partner company's hearing aid, although preferences were comparable in adopting four types of hearing aid formulas surveyed in the questionnaire. Conclusions: These data confirm high variability among audiologists' CI programming practices, and documenting these differences is an important step to understanding how to best treat patients.

Bimodal Hearing in Individuals with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: Benefits, Challenges, and Management

Binaural hearing offers numerous advantages over monaural hearing. While bilateral implants are a successful treatment option for some patients, many individuals choose to achieve binaural hearing by using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Compared with monaural hearing, benefits of bimodal hearing include improved speech perception in quiet and in noise, improved localization, and more natural sound quality. Despite the advantages, there exist disadvantages to bimodal hearing, primarily related to binaural integration. Management of these devices can be challenging in that the hearing aid and cochlear implant may be managed by different clinicians. When fitting devices, strategies are recommended to optimize the integration of input from both devices. In managing bimodal devices, recommended outcomes measures include those that would reflect bimodal benefit, such as speech understanding in noise and spatial sound quality perception.

Experiments on Auditory-Visual Perception of Sentences by Users of Unilateral, Bimodal, and Bilateral Cochlear Implants

PURPOSE

Five experiments probed auditory-visual (AV) understanding of sentences by users of cochlear implants (CIs).

METHOD

Sentence material was presented in auditory (A), visual (V), and AV test conditions to listeners with normal hearing and CI users.

RESULTS

(a) Most CI users report that most of the time, they have access to both A and V information when listening to speech. (b) CI users did not achieve better scores on a task of speechreading than did listeners with normal hearing. (c) Sentences that are easy to speechread provided 12 percentage points more gain to speech understanding than did sentences that were difficult. (d) Ease of speechreading for sentences is related to phrase familiarity. (e) Users of bimodal CIs benefit from low-frequency acoustic hearing even when V cues are available, and a second CI adds to the benefit of a single CI when V cues are available. (f) V information facilitates lexical segmentation by improving the recognition of the number of syllables produced and the relative strength of these syllables.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data are consistent with the view that V information improves CI users' ability to identify syllables in the acoustic stream and to recognize their relative juxtaposed strengths. Enhanced syllable resolution allows better identification of word onsets, which, when combined with place-of-articulation information from visible consonants, improves lexical access.

Bimodal Stimulation in Prelingually Deaf Children: Lessons from a Cross-sectional Survey

OBJECTIVE

(1) To survey the use of bimodal stimulation by prelingually deaf children receiving unilateral cochlear implantation and (2) to investigate demographic and audiologic factors explaining the use of bimodal stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Tertiary care institution.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The study included 44 unilaterally implanted prelingually deaf children from a single institution, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. During routine follow-up visits, an examiner interviewed parents on their children's use of bimodal stimulation. At the same time, residual hearing and hearing aid gain in the contralateral ear were assessed.

RESULTS

Approximately half of patients (52%) used bimodal stimulation. On average, bimodal users showed better mean unaided and aided thresholds than nonbimodal users (P < .001). A mean 250- to 500-Hz unaided threshold ≤90 dB HL in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear was associated with a higher probability of bimodal use (P = .008). Parental satisfaction with the contralateral hearing aid was inversely correlated with mean 125- to 500-Hz and 1000- to 4000-Hz unaided thresholds (P < .001) and mean 250- to 500-Hz and 1000- to 4000-Hz aided thresholds (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A mean 250- to 500-Hz unaided threshold ≤90 dB HL is associated with a higher probability of bimodal use by prelingually deaf children. Better residual hearing is associated with a higher degree of parental satisfaction with the contralateral hearing aid. This information could be useful to counsel parents of prelingually deaf children, when deciding between bimodal stimulation and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation.

Bimodal Hearing Aid Retention after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation

The goal of this study was to investigate contralateral hearing aid (HA) use after unilateral cochlear implantation and to identify factors of influence on the occurrence of a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipient becoming a bimodal user. A retrospective cross-sectional chart review was carried out among 77 adult unilateral CI recipients 1 year after implantation. A bimodal HA retention rate of 64% was observed. Associations with demographics, hearing history, residual hearing and speech recognition ability were investigated. Better pure-tone thresholds and unaided speech scores in the non-implanted ear, as well as a smaller difference in speech recognition scores between both ears, were significantly associated with HA retention. A combined model of HA retention was proposed, and cut-off points were determined to identify those CI recipients who were most likely to become bimodal users. These results can provide input to clinical guidelines concerning bimodal CI candidacy.

Exploring the clinical approach to the bimodal fitting of hearing aids and cochlear implants: results of an international survey

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that the fitting of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear of cochlear implant (CI) recipients is now well established as standard clinical practice. However, there is a lack of experience in HA fitting within the CI centres and the use of published bimodal fitting procedures is poor. The HA is often not refitted after CI switch-on and this may contribute to rejection. Including a bimodal fitting prescription and process in the CI fitting software would make applying a balancing procedure easier and may increase its implementation in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This survey was designed to investigate and understand the current approach to bimodal fitting of HAs and CIs across different countries and the recommendations made to recipients.

METHODS

Clinicians working with HAs and/or CIs were invited to participate in an international multicentre clinical survey, designed to obtain information on the various approaches towards bimodal hearing and CI and HA device fitting. Forty-one questions were presented to clinicians in experienced CI centres across a range of countries and answers were collected via an online survey.

RESULTS

In all, 65 responses were obtained from 12 different countries. All clinicians said they would advise a CI user to wear a contralateral HA if indicated. However, a significant number (45%) had either never fitted HAs before or had less than 1 year of experience. In general, there were no specific criteria for selecting candidates to fit with an HA. A strategy to balance the HA with the CI was not used as a standard practice for any of the adults and was used in only 12% of the children. Only half the respondents were aware of the bimodal literature. The majority of professionals (18/30) did not refit the HA after CI switch-on. However, if users complained of sound quality or loudness issues or had poor test results, a follow-up session was provided. The main benefit reported by recipients was improvement in overall sound quality.