Search

Introduction: Single sided deafness (SSD) results in profound cortical reorganization that presents clinically with a significant impact on sound localization and speech comprehension. Cochlear implantation (CI) has been approved for two manufacturers' devices in the United States to restore bilateral function in SSD patients with up to 10 years of auditory deprivation. However, there is great variability in auditory performance and it remains unclear how auditory deprivation affects CI benefits within this 10-year window. This prospective study explores how measured auditory performance relates to real-world experience and device use in a cohort of SSD-CI subjects who have between 0 and 10 years of auditory deprivation. Methods: Subjects were assessed before implantation and 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-CI activation via Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word recognition and Arizona Biomedical Institute (AzBio) sentence recognition in varying spatial speech and noise presentations that simulate head shadow, squelch, and summation effects (S0N0, SSSDNNH, SNHNSSD; 0 = front, SSD = impacted ear, NH = normal hearing ear). Patient-centered assessments were performed using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ), and Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Device use data was acquired from manufacturer software. Further subgroup analysis was performed on data stratified by <5 years and 5-10 years duration of deafness. Results: In the SSD ear, median (IQR) CNC word scores pre-implant and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-implant were 0% (0-0%), 24% (8-44%), 28% (4-44%), and 18% (7-33%), respectively. At 6months post-activation, AzBio scores in S0N0 and SSSDNNH configurations (n = 25) demonstrated statistically significant increases in performance by 5% (p = 0.03) and 20% (p = 0.005), respectively. The median HUI3 score was 0.56 pre-implant, lower than scores for common conditions such as anxiety (0.68) and diabetes (0.77), and comparable to stroke (0.58). Scores improved to 0.83 (0.71-0.91) by 3 months post-activation. These audiologic and subjective benefits were observed even in patients with longer durations of deafness. Discussion: By merging CI-associated changes in objective and patient-centered measures of auditory function, our findings implicate central mechanisms of auditory compensation and adaptation critical in auditory performance after SSD-CI and quantify the extent to which they affect the real-world experience reported by individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose–radiation (low-dose computed tomography [LDCT]) saves lives. Despite recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) draft endorsement of LCS, a minority of eligible patients get screened. Meaningful use is a set of standards for electronic health records (EHR) established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and includes reporting of smoking status. We sought to improve rates of LCS among patients treated at our institution by identifying eligible patients using augmented smoking-related meaningful use criteria. Methods We launched an LCS program at our institution, a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer center, in January 2013. We developed a “tobacco screen,” administered by clinic staff to all adult outpatients every 6 months and entered into the EHR. This contained smoking-related meaningful use criteria as well as a pack-year calculation and quit date if applicable. Weekly electronic reports of patients who met eligibility criteria for LCS were generated, and EHR review excluded patients who had had chest computed tomography (CT) within 12 months or who were undergoing cancer treatment. We then contacted eligible patients to review eligibility for LCS and communicated with the primary treating physician regarding the plan for LCS. Results During the first 3 months of the program, 4 patients were enrolled, 2 by physician referral and 2 by self-referral. We then began to use the tobacco screen reports and identified 418 patients potentially eligible for LCS. Over the next 7 months, we enrolled a total of 110 patients. Fifty-eight (53%) were identified from the tobacco screen, 32 (29%) were self-referred, and 20 (18%) were physician referrals. Three stage I lung cancers were detected and treated. The tobacco screen was easily implemented by clinic staff and took a median time of 2 minutes to enter for current and former smokers. Lack of response to attempts at telephone contact and objection to paying out-of-pocket costs were the most common reasons for failing to screen eligible patients. Conclusions Use of augmented meaningful use criteria containing detailed tobacco exposure history is feasible and allows for identification of patients eligible for LCS in a medical center. Barriers to LCS include lack of insurance coverage and lack of systematic referral of patients at high risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]