Cochlear Implant Qualification in Noise Versus Quiet: Do Patients Demonstrate Similar Postoperative Benefits?

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient factors, audiometric performance, and patient-reported outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) patients who would not have qualified with in-quiet testing alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Adult CI recipients implanted between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Patients with preoperative AzBio Quiet > 60% in the implanted ear, requiring multitalker babble to qualify, comprised the in-noise qualifying (NQ) group. NQ postoperative performance was compared with the in-quiet qualifying (QQ) group using CNC, AzBio Quiet, and AzBio +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), Cochlear Implant Quality of Life scale (CIQOL-10), and daily device usage were also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The QQ group (n = 771) and NQ group (n = 67) were similar in age and hearing loss duration. NQ had higher average preoperative and postoperative speech recognition scores. A larger proportion of QQ saw significant improvement in CNC and AzBio Quiet scores in the CI-only listening condition (eg, CI-only AzBio Quiet: 88% QQ vs 51% NQ, P < .001). Improvement in CI-only AzBio +5 dB and in all open set testing in the best-aided binaural listening condition was similar between groups (eg, Binaural AzBio Quiet 73% QQ vs 59% NQ, P = .345). Postoperative SSQ ratings, CIQOL scores, and device usage were also equivalent between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients who require in-noise testing to meet CI candidacy demonstrate similar improvements in best-aided speech perception and patient-reported outcomes as in-QQ, supporting the use of in-noise testing to determine CI qualification for borderline CI candidates.