Healthy aging in elderly cochlear implant recipients: a multinational observational study

Cognitive processing speed improvement after cochlear implantation

Background

Untreated hearing loss has an effect on cognition. It is hypothesized that the additional processing required to compensate for the sensory loss affects the cognitive resources available for other tasks and that this could be mitigated by a hearing device.

Methods

The impact on cognition of cochlear implants (CIs) was tested in 100 subjects, ≥60 years old, with bilateral moderately-severe to profound post linguistic deafness using hearing aids. Data was compared pre and 12 and 18 months after cochlear implantation for the speech spatial qualities questionnaire, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail making test B (TMTB) and digit symbol coding (DSC) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version IV and finally the timed up and go test (TUG). Subjects were divided into young old (60-64), middle old (65-75) and old old (75+) groups. Cognitive test scores and times were standardized according to available normative data.

Results

Hearing significantly improved pre- to post-operatively across all age groups. There was no change post-implant in outcomes for TMTB, TUG or MMSE tests. Age-corrected values were within normal expectations for all age groups for the TUG and MMSE. However, DSC scores and TMTB times were worse than normal. There was a significant increase in DSC scores between baseline and 12-months for 60- to 64-year-olds (t[153] = 2.608, p = 0.027), which remained at 18 months (t[153] = 2.663, p = 0.023).

Discussion

The improved attention and processing speed in the youngest age group may be a consequence of reallocation of cognitive resources away from auditory processing due to greatly improved hearing. The oldest age group of participants had cognition scores closest to normal values, suggesting that only the most able older seniors tend to come forward for a CI. Severe to profoundly deaf individuals with hearing aids or cochlear implants were still poorer than age-equivalent normally hearing individuals with respect to cognitive flexibility, attention, working memory, processing speed and visuoperceptual functions. Due to a lack of data for the TUG, TMTB and DSC in the literature for hearing impaired individuals, the results reported here provide an important set of reference data for use in future research.

Improving quality of life in the elderly: hearing loss treatment with cochlear implants

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss impacts health-related quality of life and general well-being and was identified in a Lancet report as one of the largest potentially modifiable factors for the prevention of age-related dementia. There is a lack of robust data on how cochlear implant treatment in the elderly impacts quality of life. The primary objective was to measure the change in health utility following cochlear implantation in individuals aged ≥ 60 years.

METHODS

This study uniquely prospectively recruited a large multinational sample of 100 older adults (mean age 71.7 (SD7.6) range 60-91 years) with severe to profound hearing loss. In a repeated-measures design, pre and post implant outcome measures were analysed using mixed-effect models. Health utility was assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3). Subjects were divided into groups of 60-64, 65-74 and 75 + years.

RESULTS

At 18 months post implant, the mean HUI3 score improved by 0.13 (95%CI: 0.07-0.18 p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the HUI3 between age groups (F[2,9228] = 0.53, p = 0.59). The De Jong Loneliness scale reduced by an average of 0.61 (95%CI: 0.25-0.97 p < 0.014) and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale improved on average (1.25, 95%CI: 0.85-1.65 p < 0.001). Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening reduced by an average of 8.7 (95%CI: 6.7-10.8, p < 0.001) from a significant to mild-moderate hearing handicap. Age was not a statistically significant factor for any of the other measures (p > 0.20). At baseline 90% of participants had no or mild depression and there was no change in mean depression scores after implant. Categories of Auditory perception scale showed that all subjects achieved a level of speech sound discrimination without lip reading post implantation (level 4) and at least 50% could use the telephone with a known speaker.

CONCLUSIONS

Better hearing improved individuals' quality of life, ability to communicate verbally and their ability to function independently. They felt less lonely and less handicapped by their hearing loss. Benefits were independent of age group. Cochlear implants should be considered as a routine treatment option for those over 60 years with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ ), 7 March 2017, NCT03072862.

Age-related changes in auditory perception. Hearing loss in the elderly: aging ear or aging brain?

Hearing loss in the elderly is a very common disease: it is estimated to affect up to a third of the population aged 65 years or more, and 50% of people over 75 years old. There is a growing amount of data concerning the association between hearing loss and cognitive decline. Various possible mechanisms at the basis of this association have been proposed, such as the "common cause hypothesis," the "cascade hypothesis," and the "cognitive load hypothesis."Critically reviewing the data is essential to highlight the features of the relationship between hearing loss and cognitive decline. Most of the hearing tests available should take into account that dementia or even just mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may lead to poor performance during examination. On the other hand, clinicians should also remember that tests used to assess cognitive function require an adequate hearing capacity.In this article we propose to analyze current diagnostic tests, treatment options, auditory processing, and rehabilitation strategies for hearing loss in the elderly in order to facilitate the management of this handicap in this fragile population.

Do Patients Aged 85 Years and above Benefit from Their Cochlear Implants?

The present study aims to investigate the usage and benefits of cochlear implants (CIs) in elderly patients aged ≥85 years, including their device-handling issues, follow-ups, and the influence on their well-being. The patients answered one questionnaire regarding quality of life, EQ5D-3L, and one questionnaire, obtained from the Swedish CI quality register, regarding usage, handling, satisfaction, remaining difficulties, etc. The medical records were searched for the implantation date, implant model, speech processor model, monosyllabic (MS) word scores, infections over the implant, and compliance regarding scheduled visits to the clinic. The results show that most elderly patients are satisfied full-time users of their implants. Even though most patients had no problems handling their CI, handling issues must be considered. Recurring guidance and training on device operation are needed. We suggest that follow-up visits are essentially needed for this group of patients on a regular basis. CI surgery is considered a safe treatment, even for the elderly. Upgrads to new external equipment (e.g., sound processors) should not be excluded because of their age. The results suggested that the CI positively affected their well-being. This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (5/10-2021, Dnr: 2021-04970).

Changes in cognitive performance after cochlear implantation in adults and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct critical assessment of the literature on the effects of cochlear implantation on adults' cognitive abilities.

DESIGN

PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, Web of Science, Livivo, Cochrane, Embase, PsycInfo, and grey literature were searched. Eligibility criteria: age 18 or over with severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss, cochlear implantation, cognitive test before and after implantation. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB, ROBINS-I and MASTARI tools. Meta-analysis was performed.

STUDY SAMPLE

Out of 1830 studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

On AlaCog test, significant improvement was found after implantation [MD = -46.64; CI95% = -69.96 to -23.33; I² = 71%]. No significant differences were found on the Flanker, Recall, Trail A and n-back tests (p > 0.05). For MMSE, no significance was found [MD 0.63; CI 95% = -2.19 to 3.45; I² = 88%]. On TMT, an overall significant effect with a 9-second decrease in processing speed post-implantation [MD = -9.43; CI95% = -15.42 to -3.44; I² = 0%].

CONCLUSION

Cognitive improvements after cochlear implantation may depend on time and the cognitive task evaluated. Well-designed studies with longer follow-up are necessary to examine whether cochlear implantation has a positive influence on cognitive abilities. Development of cognitive assessment tools to hearing-impaired individuals is needed.

Auditory training for adults with cochlear implants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the peer-reviewed literature on the efficacy of auditory training (AT) on auditory outcomes in post lingually deafened adults with cochlear implants (CIs).

DESIGN

A systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Searches of five electronic databases yielded 10 studies published after 2010 that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

For post lingually deafened adults with CIs, the evidence is suggestive that some AT can improve some auditory outcomes compared to no training. More specifically, the evidence suggests that phonemic training can improve identification of trained phonemes, and nonsense word training can improve sentence recognition in noise in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

While many AT interventions are currently being used with post lingually deafened adults with CIs, the evidence for AT improving auditory outcomes is suggestive with the best evidence being for nonsense word training improving sentence recognition in noise by an average of 10% with these improvements retained at 26 weeks post-training in this population. There remains a need for high quality studies that have the capacity to demonstrate, clearly and unequivocally, which AT is most effective for improving which auditory outcomes in this population.