Clinical Relevance of Quality of Life Outcome in Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits of cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults and estimate the clinical relevance of these benefits. Study Design: Prospective intervention study. Setting: Tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Forty-four postlingually deafened adults. Interventions: Cochlear implantation with a Clarion CII HiFocus 1 or HiRes 90K. Main Outcome Measures: The Health Utility Index Mark II (HUI2) and Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire were administered to quantify health-related QoL (HRQoL); utilities were obtained from the HUI2 and time trade-off instrument. Speech perception scores were analyzed. Patient factors were correlated with postimplant HRQoL and speech perception scores. Clinical significant benefit was estimated using the minimal clinically significant difference (MID) and effect size (ES). Results: The results show a significant improvement in HRQoL and speech perception (p < 0.001). The improvement in HRQoL is mainly obtained in the first months after implantation and is largest in the categories concerning physical functioning (hearing). A shorter duration of deafness (p = 0.003) and higher educational level (p = 0.015) were significant predictors of better speech perception. Cochlear implantation proved to be a cost-effective procedure. By using the MID and ES, we found important clinical improvements on 6 health domains of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and on the sensation domain of the HUI2 in most patients; all but 1 of the ESs were large. Conclusion: Cochlear implants have a large and significant positive impact on HRQoL and speech perception and are cost-effective. These improvements are clinically relevant as measured by the MID.

[1]  S. Hogg-Johnson,et al.  Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  G. Heydebrand,et al.  Cognitive Predictors of Improvements in Adults’ Spoken Word Recognition Six Months after Cochlear Implant Activation , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[3]  Birger Mo,et al.  Cochlear Implants and Quality of Life: A Prospective Study , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[4]  J. Sloan Assessing the Minimally Clinically Significant Difference: Scientific Considerations, Challenges and Solutions , 2005, COPD.

[5]  D. Proops,et al.  Criteria of Candidacy for Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults I: Theory and Measures of Effectiveness , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[6]  A. Q. Summerfield,et al.  Criteria of Candidacy for Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults II: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[7]  D. Proops,et al.  Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults - II: cost-effectiveness analysis , 2004 .

[8]  R. Ramsden Prognosis after cochlear implantation , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: a prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[10]  R. Labadie,et al.  Quality of Life in Hearing-Impaired Adults: The Role of Cochlear Implants and Hearing Aids , 2003, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[11]  Peter A Ubel,et al.  What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[12]  J. Niparko,et al.  Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: The Effect of History and Residual Hearing on Predicted Postoperative Performance , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[13]  D. Beaton,et al.  Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. , 2003, Medical care.

[14]  James G Wright,et al.  Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. , 2003, Medical care.

[15]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[16]  Niklas Zethraeus,et al.  Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies , 2003, PharmacoEconomics.

[17]  H. Francis,et al.  Impact of Cochlear Implants on the Functional Health Status of Older Adults , 2002, The Laryngoscope.

[18]  Jeroen J. Briaire,et al.  Initial Evaluation of the Clarion CII Cochlear Implant: Speech Perception and Neural Response Imaging , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[19]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[20]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Preoperative Predictors of Postoperative Implant Performance in Children , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[21]  P. van den Broek,et al.  Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire , 2000, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[22]  H R Rubin,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. , 2000, JAMA.

[23]  P. van den Broek,et al.  THE EFFECT OF COCHLEAR IMPLANT USE IN POSTLINGUALLY DEAF ADULTS , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[24]  G. de Lissovoy,et al.  A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[25]  J. Niparko,et al.  Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-analysis. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[26]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[27]  R. Osborne,et al.  The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life , 1999, Quality of Life Research.

[28]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[29]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.

[30]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Measuring Patient Benefit from Otorhinolaryngological Surgery and Therapy , 1996, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[31]  Bosman Aj,et al.  Intelligibility of Dutch CVC Syllables and Sentences for Listeners with Normal Hearing and with Three Types of Hearing Impairment , 1995 .

[32]  J. Piette,et al.  The Impact of Age on the Quality of Life in Persons with HIV Infection , 1995, Journal of aging and health.

[33]  Tyler Rs,et al.  Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[34]  A. Summerfield,et al.  Cochlear Implantation: Demand, Costs, and Utility , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[35]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Quality of life measures in health care. II: Design, analysis, and interpretation. , 1992, BMJ.

[36]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[37]  M. Bergner Measurement of health status. , 1985, Medical care.

[38]  B. Balough Cochlear Implant Outcomes and Quality of Life in Adults with Prelingual Deafness , 2008 .

[39]  J. Manson,et al.  Prospective Study of , 2007 .

[40]  A. Stuart,et al.  An investigation of telephone use among cochlear implant recipients. , 2004, American journal of audiology.

[41]  R. Tyler,et al.  Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[42]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. , 1995, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[43]  G. Cordero [HIV infection]. , 1995, SIDAhora : un proyecto del Departamento de Publicaciones del PWA Coalition, NY.

[44]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .