Background Image
Previous Page  230 / 280 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 230 / 280 Next Page
Page Background

SEMENOV ET AL. / EAR & HEARING, VOL. 34, NO. 4, 402–412

requiring the surgical team to replace the device in the same or

opposite ear. The probabilities and costs of these events were

based on clinical outcomes from the CDaCI study.

Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was

used for decision tree modeling, and STATA version 12 (Stata-

Corp, College Station, TX) was used for all other analyses.

RESULTS

Study Population

A total of 175 childrenwere followed for 72months after CI. Of

these, 60 children were implanted before 18 months, 71 between

18 and 36 months, and 44 after 36 months of age, with a mean

age at implantation of 13.2, 26.4, and 47.0 months, respectively.

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the study population

stratified by age of implantation. The three groups differed by

gender, age at onset of deafness, duration of deafness, four-tone

hearing threshold average (PTA)—a measure of preimplantation

residual hearing, socioeconomic status, baseline HUI scores, and

baseline Bayley psychomotor development index, but were not

significantly different by race, maternal education level, and other

measures of baseline IQ.

Measurement of Health Utility

Children implanted at <18 months of age gained an average

unadjusted health-utility improvement of 0.51 points in the first

6 years after implantation, compared with 0.41 points for the

18- to 36-month group, and 0.34 points for the >36-month age

group at implantation (

p

< 0.0001). Adjusting for differences

in baseline HUI3 scores and controlling for rate of bilateral

implantation using the GEE model led to a 0.49 point health-

utility gain for the youngest group, a 0.44 point gain for the

middle group, and a 0.43 point gain for the oldest group, which

resulted in lifetime projected QALY gains of 10.7, 9.0, and 8.4

QALYs, respectively (Fig. 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2,

TABLE 1. Characteristics of cohorts

Cochlear Implantation

<18 mos (n = 60)

18–36 mos (n = 71)

>36 mos (n = 44)

Characteristics, No.

Age at implantation, mos, mean (SD)

13.2 (2.4)

26.4 (5.7)

47.0 (7.9)

Duration of deafness, mos, mean (SD)†

13.0 (2.8)

25.4 (6.8)

45.2 (8.3)

Female (%)†

25 (42)

36 (51)

31 (70)

Hispanic (%)

7 (12)

18 (25)

11 (25)

Congenital SNHL (%)†

51 (85)

34 (48)

20 (45)

Four-tone hearing threshold average, dB, better ear†

107.5 (16.3)

106.7 (15.3)

99.6 (16.0)

Race, No. (%)

 White

49 (82)

48 (68)

34 (77)

 Black

4 (7)

9 (13)

2 (5)

 Asian

2 (3)

4 (6)

3 (7)

 Other

5 (8)

10 (14)

5 (11)

Maternal education, No. (%)

<8th grade

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (2)

Some high school

1 (2)

5 (7)

5 (11)

Graduated high school

11 (18)

11 (15)

3 (7)

Some college

13 (22)

23 (32)

14 (32)

Completed college

35 (58)

32 (45)

21 (48)

Household income, No. (%)‡

 <$15,000

1 (2)

8 (11)

4 (9)

 $15,000–$29,000

7 (12)

9 (13)

5 (11)

 $30,000–$49,999

8 (13)

20 (28)

10 (23)

 $50,000–$74,999

14 (23)

8 (11)

7 (16)

 $75,000–$99,999

12 (20)

10 (14)

3 (7)

 >$100,000

11 (18)

10 (14)

9 (20)

Income <$50,000†

16 (27)

37 (52)

19 (43)

HUI scores,* mean (SD)

Before implantation†

0.26 (0.14)

0.31(0.17)

0.37 (0.21)

Six years after implantation

0.76 (0.14)

0.72 (0.20)

0.71 (0.17)

 Change†

0.51 (0.21)

0.41 (0.24)

0.34 (0.24)

Cognitive status score, mean (SD)

Bayley PDI (<2y)†

96.2 (17.4)

95.0 (18.9)

76.2 (19.0)

Leiter-R Brief IQ (>2y)

113.5 (15.8)

94.8 (16.0)

106.2 (21.0)

 Combined**

100.4 (18.1)

95.6 (20.1)

91.4 (25.5)

Bayley PDI, Bayley Psychomotor Development Index; HUI, Health Utilities Index; Leiter-R Brief, Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised; SNHL, sensorineural hearing loss.

*Health Utilities Index was measured using Mark III transforms—unadjusted scores (see Fig. 1A).

Statistically significant differences among children undergoing cochlear implantation at <18 months, 18 to 36 months, and >36 months of age (

P

< 0.05).

Although household income was not significantly different among implant age groups using the six aforementioned family income categories, grouping by family income of less than $50,000

results in significantly lower frequencies among families of children implanted at younger ages (

p

= 0.012).

**Cognitive status measured by the Bayley Physical Developmental Index for children under 24 months of age and by Leiter Brief Intelligent Quotient Composite Score for children 24 months

of age or older.

208