Qualifying Cochlear Implant Candidates - Does it Matter How Patients Are Qualified?

Objective Evaluate variable qualification criteria for cochlear implant (CI) recipients and 12-month speech perception outcomes. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting HERMES national database and nonoverlapping single-institution CI database. Patients A total of 2,124 adult unilateral CI recipients categorized by qualifying status: AzBio in quiet (n = 1,239), +10 dB SNR (but not in quiet; n = 519), +5 dB SNR (but not in quiet or +10 dB SNR; n = 366); CNC ≤40% (n = 1,037), CNC 41% to 50% (n = 31), and CNC 51% to 60% (n = 20). Interventions CI. Main Outcome Measures Pre- and 12-month postoperative speech perception performance. Clinically significant improvement was defined as ≥15% gain. Results Quiet qualifiers experienced improvement in all listening conditions, whereas +10 dB SNR and +5 dB SNR qualifiers only improved in their qualifying condition and implanted ear CNC. When stratified by expanded Medicare criteria (binaural AzBio ≤60% correct), patients that qualified in quiet experienced improvements regardless of qualifying threshold or background noise. However, those that qualified in noise and AzBio ≤60% experienced mixed results in quiet and limited gain in background noise. When ≤60% criteria was applied to CNC of the worse ear, ≤40% qualifiers experienced large improvements in all tested conditions, but those who qualified by 41% to 50% or 51% to 60% only demonstrated modest improvements in AzBio sentence testing. Conclusions Quiet qualifiers improved in all testing conditions, while those qualifying in noise improved in their qualifying condition. Patients who qualified by expanded Medicare criteria (≤60%) showed improvement when qualifying with AzBio in quiet, but should be used with caution when qualifying patients in background noise or CNC due to more limited gains in performance.