Literature DB >> 16140706

A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol.

Jean L Johnson1, Karl R White, Judith E Widen, Judith S Gravel, Michele James, Teresa Kennalley, Antonia B Maxon, Lynn Spivak, Maureen Sullivan-Mahoney, Betty R Vohr, Yusnita Weirather, June Holstrum.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Ninety percent of all newborns in the United States are now screened for hearing loss before they leave the hospital. Many hospitals use a 2-stage protocol for newborn hearing screening in which all infants are screened first with otoacoustic emissions (OAE). No additional testing is done with infants who pass the OAE, but infants who fail the OAE next are screened with automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR). Infants who fail the A-ABR screening are referred for diagnostic testing to determine whether they have permanent hearing loss (PHL). Those who pass the A-ABR are considered at low risk for hearing loss and are not tested further. The objective of this multicenter study was to determine whether a substantial number of infants who fail the initial OAE and pass the A-ABR have PHL at approximately 9 months of age.
METHODS: Seven birthing centers with successful newborn hearing screening programs using a 2-stage OAE/A-ABR screening protocol participated. During the study period, 86634 infants were screened for hearing loss at these sites. Of those infants who failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR in at least 1 ear, 1524 were enrolled in the study. Data about prenatal, neonatal, and socioeconomic factors, plus hearing loss risk indicators, were collected for all enrolled infants. When the infants were an average of 9.7 months of age, diagnostic audiologic evaluations were done for 64% of the enrolled infants (1432 ears from 973 infants).
RESULTS: Twenty-one infants (30 ears) who had failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR during the newborn hearing screening were identified with permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Twenty-three (77%) of the ears had mild hearing loss (average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz < or =40-decibel hearing level). Nine (43%) infants had bilateral as opposed to unilateral loss, and 18 (86%) infants had sensorineural as opposed to permanent conductive hearing loss.
CONCLUSIONS: If all infants were screened for hearing loss using the 2-stage OAE/A-ABR newborn hearing screening protocol currently used in many hospitals, then approximately 23% of those with PHL at approximately 9 months of age would have passed the A-ABR. This happens in part because much of the A-ABR screening equipment in current use was designed to identify infants with moderate or greater hearing loss. Thus, program administrators should be certain that the screening program, equipment, and protocols are designed to identify the type of hearing loss targeted by their program. The results also show the need for continued surveillance of hearing status during childhood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16140706     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-1688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  27 in total

1.  Neonatal hearing screening of high-risk infants using automated auditory brainstem response: a retrospective analysis of referral rates.

Authors:  I J McGurgan; N Patil
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  A Targeted Approach for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Screening Within Newborn Hearing Screening.

Authors:  Karen B Fowler; Faye P McCollister; Diane L Sabo; Angela G Shoup; Kris E Owen; Julie L Woodruff; Edith Cox; Lisa S Mohamed; Daniel I Choo; Suresh B Boppana
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Developmental hearing loss impedes auditory task learning and performance in gerbils.

Authors:  Gardiner von Trapp; Ishita Aloni; Stephen Young; Malcolm N Semple; Dan H Sanes
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  Monitoring neonates for ototoxicity.

Authors:  Angela C Garinis; Alison Kemph; Anne Marie Tharpe; Joern-Hendrik Weitkamp; Cynthia McEvoy; Peter S Steyger
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Reversible auditory brainstem responses screening failures in high risk neonates.

Authors:  Ioannis Psarommatis; Vasiliki Florou; Marios Fragkos; Eleytherios Douniadakis; Alexandra Kontrogiannis
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 6.  Amplification considerations for children with minimal or mild bilateral hearing loss and unilateral hearing loss.

Authors:  Sarah McKay; Judith S Gravel; Anne Marie Tharpe
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-03

Review 7.  Hearing screening and diagnostic evaluation of children with unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss.

Authors:  Danielle S Ross; W June Holstrum; Marcus Gaffney; Denise Green; Robert F Oyler; Judith S Gravel
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-03

8.  The role of current audiological tests in the early diagnosis of hearing impairment in infant.

Authors:  Seikholet Kuki; Shelly Chadha; Shruti Dhingra; Achal Gulati
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-08-25

9.  Association of Adverse Hearing, Growth, and Discharge Age Outcomes With Postnatal Cytomegalovirus Infection in Infants With Very Low Birth Weight.

Authors:  Kristin E D Weimer; Matthew S Kelly; Sallie R Permar; Reese H Clark; Rachel G Greenberg
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 16.193

10.  Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2020-03-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.