Search

IMPORTANCE: Cochlear implantation is highly effective at improving hearing outcomes, but results have been limited to groupwise analysis. That is, limited data are available for individual patients that report comparisons of preoperative aided speech recognition and postimplantation speech recognition. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in preoperative aided vs postoperative speech recognition scores for individual patients receiving cochlear implants when considering the measurement error for each speech recognition test. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used a prospectively maintained database of patients who received cochlear implants between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, at a tertiary, university-based referral center. Adults with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation with 6- or 12-month postoperative measures using 1 or more speech recognition tests were studied. EXPOSURES: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Postoperative word recognition (consonant-nucleus-consonant word test), sentence recognition (AzBio sentences in quiet), and sentence recognition in noise (AzBio sentences in +10-dB signal-to-noise ratio) scores, and association of each speech recognition score change with aided preoperative score to each test’s measurement error. RESULTS: Analysis of data from a total of 470 implants from 323 patients included 253 male (53.8%) patients; the mean (SD) age was 61.2 (18.3) years. Most patients had statistically significant improvement in all speech recognition tests postoperatively beyond measurement error, including 262 (84.8%) for word recognition, 226 (87.6%) for sentence recognition, and 33 (78.6%) for sentence recognition in noise. A small number of patients had equivalent preoperative and postoperative scores, including 45 (14.5%) for word recognition, 28 (10.9%) for sentence recognition, and 9 (21.4%) for sentence recognition in noise. Four patients (1.6%) had significantly poorer scores in sentence recognition after implantation. The associations between age at implantation and change in speech recognition scores were –0.12 (95% CI, –0.23 to –0.01) for word recognition, –0.22 (95% CI, –0.34 to –0.10) for sentence recognition, and –0.10 (95% CI, –0.39 to 0.21) for sentence recognition in noise. Patients with no significant improvement were similarly distributed between all preoperative aided speech scores for word recognition (range, 0%-58%) and sentence recognition (range, 0%-56%) testing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, with respect to preoperative aided speech recognition, postoperative cochlear implant outcomes for individual patients were largely encouraging. However, improvements in scores for individual patients remained highly variable, which may not be adequately represented in groupwise analyses and reporting of mean scores. Presenting individual patient data from a large sample of individuals with cochlear implants provides a better understanding of individual differences in speech recognition outcomes and contributes to more complete interpretations of successful outcomes after cochlear implantation.

IMPORTANCE: Multiple studies have evaluated associations between post–cochlear implant (CI) speech recognition outcomes and patient-related factors. Current literature often appears equivocal or contradictory, so little is known about the factors that contribute to successful speech recognition outcomes with CIs. OBJECTIVE: To use a meta-analysis to pool data from the extant literature and provide an objective summary of existing evidence on associations of patient-related factors and CI speech recognition outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases in January 2019 using the following search terms: cochlear implant or cochlear implants or cochlear implantation and speech recognition or word recognition or sentence recognition. Studies of postlingually deafened adult CI recipients that reported word or sentence recognition scores were included. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were postlingual adult CI recipients 18 years or older with word or sentence recognition scores at minimum 6-month postimplantation. Studies that included patients undergoing revision or reimplantation surgery were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 1809 unique articles underwent review by abstract, and 121 articles underwent full-text review, resulting in 13 articles of 1095 patients for a meta-analysis of correlations. Random-effects model was used when the heterogeneity test yielded a low P value (P < .05). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The planned primary outcome was the pooled correlation values between postimplant speech recognition scores and patient-related factors. RESULTS: Of the 1095 patients included from the 13 studies, the mean age at implantation ranged from 51.2 to 63.7 years and the mean duration of hearing loss ranged from 9.5 to 31.8 years; for the 825 patients for whom sex was reported, 421 (51.0%) were women. A weak negative correlation was observed between age at implantation and postimplant sentence recognition in quiet (r = −0.31 [95% CI, −0.41 to −0.20]). Other correlations between patient-related factors and postimplant word or sentence recognition were statistically significant, but all correlations were absent to negligible (r = 0.02-0.27). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Given that most associations were weak, negligible, or absent, patient-related factors often thought to affect CI speech recognition ability offer limited assistance in clinical decision-making in cochlear implantation. Additional research is needed to identify patient-related and other factors that predict CI outcomes, including speech recognition and other important variables related to success with CIs.

BackgroundPropranolol’s mechanism of action for controlling infantile hemangioma (IH) remains unclear. We hypothesize that this nonselective beta antagonist downregulates renin–angiotensin–aldosterone (RAA) axis components, preventing angiogenic substrate induction of IH.MethodsIH tissue and serum were collected from children with propranolol-treated or -untreated IH during surgery. Normal skin and serum from demographically matched children were used as controls. Real-time PCR and western blot quantified RAA components in proliferative (n=10), involuting (n=10), propranolol-treated (n=12) IH, and normal specimens (n=11). Serum was analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsThere were significantly greater messenger RNA (mRNA) levels of angiotensinogen (AGT) in proliferating IH, but not in involuting or treated IH, when compared with controls (P<0.05). Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and angiotensin II receptor 1 (AGTR1) mRNA expression was higher in all IH specimens when comparedwith controls (P<0.05). ACE and AGTR1 protein expression was greater in proliferating IH tissue compared with that in controls and in involuting and treated IH tissue (P<0.05). ELISA showed no significant difference in ACE serum levels but did show a significant reduction in renin in involuting compared with proliferating IH (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe protein and mRNA expression of several RAA pathway constituents is elevated in IH tissue when compared with that in normal tissue. The action of propranolol on IH may be the result of reductions in ACE and AGTR1.

IMPORTANCE Endoglin (CD105) and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) assist in regulating vascular development. Variation in expression of these factors is linked to errors in vascular growth and remodeling in invasive lesions. OBJECTIVE To clarify the role of endoglin and eNOS in the growth of extracranial head and neck arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), an invasive and high-flow vascular anomaly. DESIGN AND SETTING Immunohistochemistry and Western blot study at an academic research center. SPECIMENS Frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-processed human AVMs (n = 14) were examined for expression of CD105 and eNOS. Expression in infantile hemangiomas (n = 9) and in normal skin with subcutaneous tissue (n = 9) was used for comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Quantitative assessment and localization of CD105 and eNOS protein expression were performed on each specimen by immunohistochemistry and Western blot analysis. Protein expression levels were compared with β-actin level and were semiquantitatively assessed. RESULTS Abundant CD105 protein was found in AVMs but was not present in infantile hemangiomas or normal skin with subcutaneous tissue. Expression of eNOS protein in AVMs and infantile hemangiomas was similar (P = .20) and was significantly greater than that in normal skin with subcutaneous tissue (P &lt; .001 and P = .008, respectively). Immunohistochemistry demonstrated that CD105 and eNOS are predominantly located in AVM vascular endothelial cells. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CD105 and eNOS are present and significantly expressed in head and neck AVMs. Expression of CD105 and eNOS may have an important role in the angiogenesis and vascular remodeling of AVMs. CD105 can be used as a specific marker for AVM endothelial cells.