Yancey KL, Patro A, Smetak M, Perkins EL, Isaacson B, Bennett ML, O'Malley M, Haynes DS, Hunter JB. Evaluating calcium channel blockers and bisphosphonates as otoprotective agents in cochlear implantation hearing preservation candidates.
Cochlear Implants Int 2024;
25:131-139. [PMID:
38738388 DOI:
10.1080/14670100.2024.2338003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/14/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Evaluate potential effects of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and bisphosphonates (BP) on residual hearing following cochlear implantation.
METHODS
Medications of 303 adult hearing preservation (HP) candidates (low frequency pure tone average [LFPTA] of 125, 250, and 500 Hz ≤80 dB HL) were reviewed. Postimplantation LFPTA of patients taking CCBs and BPs were compared to controls matched by age and preimplantation LFPTA.
RESULTS
Twenty-six HP candidates were taking a CCB (N = 14) or bisphosphonate (N = 12) at implantation. Median follow-up was 1.37 years (range 0.22-4.64y). Among subjects with initial HP, 29% (N = 2 of 7) CCB users compared to 50% (N = 2 of 4) controls subsequently lost residual hearing 3-6 months later (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.04-4.32, p = 0.58). None of the four BP patients with initial HP experienced delayed loss compared to 50% (N = 2 of 4) controls with initial HP (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-1.95, P = 0.43). Two CCB and one BP patients improved to a LFPTA <80 dB HL following initial unaided thresholds that suggested loss of residual hearing.
DISCUSSION
There were no significant differences in the odds of delayed loss of residual hearing with CCBs or BPs.
CONCLUSION
Further investigation into potential otoprotective adjuvants for maintaining residual hearing following initial successful hearing preservation is warranted, with larger cohorts and additional CCB/BP agents.
Collapse