J Audiol Otol Search

CLOSE


J Audiol Otol > Volume 21(1); 2017 > Article
Kang, Yang, Shim, Song, Kim, Lim, Ahn, Park, and Chung: Prognostic Factors for Recovery from Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Background and Objectives

This study aimed to investigate prognostic factors in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL).

Subjects and Methods

From January 2007 to December 2011, a retrospective chart review identified 494 consecutive patients with ISSNHL. Demographic, audiometric, and clinical data were analyzed using a logistic regression test.

Results

Hearing recovery from ISSNHL was significantly associated with factors such as age, duration from onset of symptoms to commencement of treatment, severity of the initial pure tone threshold, and the treatment method. Intratympanic (IT) steroid administration alone showed a comparable efficiency to oral steroid administration with or without IT steroid injection. In patients who received IT steroid injection, the duration from onset to treatment, severity of initial hearing loss, and sequential IT steroid injection following systemic steroid administration were statistically associated with hearing improvement.

Conclusions

Age, severity of initial pure tone threshold, duration from onset to treatment, initial speech discrimination, and initial pure tone threshold are statistically significant prognostic factors related to hearing improvement in ISSNHL. IT steroid injection as an initial single treatment is comparable to systemic oral steroid administration.

Introduction

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is defined as sudden-onset hearing loss without a definite cause. Because recovery from ISSNHL is possible within 2-3 months after its onset [1], early treatment with systemic steroids [2], intratympanic (IT) steroid injection [3], and/or hyperbaric oxygen therapy is necessary. However, a serviceable degree of hearing is not recovered in one-third to two-third of patients, even after these patients receive treatments that have been deemed appropriate by evidence-based analysis [2456].
Although the etiology of ISSNHL is not well clarified, inflammation or microvascular compromise of the labyrinth or cochlea nerve has been suggested [7]. Given the ambiguity of the target of the treatment, standard treatments may not be adequate for recovery of the end organs in some patients. Therefore, systemic or IT steroid treatment is effective only in patients with a good prognosis.
Many prognostic factors have been reported for ISSNHL. More severe initial hearing loss, advanced age, vertigo, descending type of audiogram, cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia were shown to be negatively correlated with recovery [7]. Recently, metabolic factors such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia have been shown to be significantly related to recovery from hearing loss [8910].
Systemic steroids are the standard initial treatment for ISSNHL, although a placebo-controlled study showed that systemic steroids did not result in superior improvement [11]. IT steroid injections are effective when they are used alone or with systemic steroid administration. Although improvement appears to be superior when a combination of systemic and IT steroids is used, a consensus does not exist regarding the use of the combination method [31213].
In this study, we aimed to find objective prognostic factors other than those previously reported and to determine the best combination of systemic administration and IT steroid injection.

Subjects and Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2007 and December 2011, and 494 consecutive patients with ISSNHL were enrolled in the present study. The Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center approved the study protocol (2012-0799).
Oral prednisolone was used as the initial treatment. Methylprednisolone (0.8 mg/kg) was given orally once a day for the first 9 days, and this dose was tapered over the next 5 days. IT dexamethasone (5 mg/mL) was administered under several different conditions: together with systemic steroid treatment, following systemic steroid treatment, or alone in some cases. Dexamethasone was injected so that it filled more than half of the tympanic cavity; during treatment, the patient was positioned with his/her head turned to the opposite side. After the injection, the patient was instructed to maintain the position and to avoid swallowing for 30 minutes.
Pure tone averages (PTA) were calculated by averaging the pure tone levels at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 Hz. Two months after the initial treatment, follow-up pure tone audiometry was performed. The hearing outcome was assessed based on Siegel's criteria: 1) complete recovery of final hearing, defined as better than 25 dB regardless of initial hearing, 2) partial recovery, defined as ≥15 dB of gain and a final hearing level between 25 and 45 dB, 3) slight improvement, defined as ≥15 dB of gain and final hearing worse than 45 dB, and 4) no improvement, defined as <15 dB of gain or final hearing worse than 75 dB [14].
Data were obtained through medical chart review in order to validate the expected prognostic factors such as duration from the onset of symptoms to commencement of treatment, initial pure tone threshold, speech discrimination, pattern of hearing loss, medical history, blood test results, and treatment options.
We used SPSS 18.0 (SPSS software; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for statistical analysis. A logistic regression test was used to assess the prognostic value of the clinical factors, comorbidities, laboratory findings, and treatment options. Variables with p<0.01 in univariate analyses were selected for multivariate analysis by using a logistic regression test to evaluate the independent prognostic value of each factor. For each test, a p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among 494 participants, 265 were men and 229 were women. The initial average hearing threshold was 72 dB and the final hearing level was 48 dB.
In univariate analysis, hearing recovery was significantly related to factors such as age, vertigo, initial pure tone threshold, initial speech discrimination score, duration from onset to treatment, pattern of hearing loss, comorbidities of diabetes and hyperlipidemia, treatment method, duration from onset to IT steroid injection, and interval of IT steroid injection (Table 1, 2, 3).
Steroid alone was administered orally in 235 patients (47%), IT dexamethasone was co-administered with oral steroid in 128 patients, and IT dexamethasone was given following oral steroid administration in 103 patients. IT dexamethasone was used alone in 28 patients because of medical conditions such as concomitant diabetes. After treatment, hearing completely improved in 26% of patients, partially or slightly improved in 40% of patients, and did not improve in 34% of patients (Table 3). Oral steroid administration with or without IT steroid injection completely or partially improved hearing in 218 patients out of 466 (46.8%). IT steroid administration alone demonstrated a similar efficiency to oral steroid administration with or without IT steroid injection (42.8%).
By using the factors that were significant in univariate analysis, multivariate analysis showed that age, duration from onset of symptoms to commencement of treatment, initial speech discrimination, severity of the initial pure tone threshold, and the treatment method were statistically related to the patients' prognoses (Table 4). Simultaneous and sequential IT dexamethasone injection showed a worse prognosis for hearing improvement (odds ratio=1.523, p=0.046; odds ratio= 3.457, p<0.001, respectively) compared to treatment with oral steroid alone in multivariate analysis (Table 4).
Analysis of the hearing results of patients who received IT steroid injection revealed that the duration from onset to treatment, severity of initial hearing loss, and IT steroid injection following systemic steroid administration were statistically significant prognostic factors for recovery from hearing loss (Table 5).

Discussion

The possible etiologies of ISSNHL are vascular compromise and/or inflammation in the labyrinth or cochlear nerve [7]. Vascular compromise results in increased reactive oxygen species and possible damage to the hair cells [15]. Ischemia induces morphological changes in the outer and inner hair cells and the organ of Corti, and the duration of ischemia correlates with the severity of the morphological changes [1617]. Recovery from hearing loss following ischemic events may be expected unless tissue damage is irreversible. The inflammatory process of the inner ear or cochlear nerve may induce structural and metabolic changes. Irreversible changes may occur when the sensory cells or axonal cells are destroyed.
The degree of hearing loss is related to the amount of deranged hair cells and damaged neural cells. Several reports described a relationship between the number of remaining hair cells and the residual hearing level in noise-induced hearing loss or other sensorineural hearing loss [1819]. Recovery of damaged cells can be expected in the absence of further pathologic processes and when sufficient amounts of cell protective agents such as D-JNKI-1 peptide, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and anti-oxidants are present [20].
The resistance of the inner ear sensory hair cells and cochlear nerve against the pathologic process described above is reported to depend on aging [21]. This implies that the inner ear hair cells have better resistance to oxidative stress in younger animals. In the present study, recovery of hearing was lower in older patients with ISSNHL.
The following factors were found to be significantly related to hearing recovery in ISSNHL in this study: old age, worse initial hearing, worse initial speech discrimination score, longer duration from onset to treatment, descending type of initial audiogram, and the presence of diabetes or hyperlipidemia. Poor speech discrimination in elderly patients is related to the loss of cochlear neurons and is a characteristic feature of neural presbycusis [22]. Delayed maximal restoration of speech discrimination scores in ISSNHL patients may result from central modulation following altered activity of the auditory pathway caused by ISSNHL [23]. In our study, worse initial speech discrimination score was related to worse prognosis in patients with ISSNHL, while other study reported that patients with poorer initial speech discrimination scores were more likely to improve [24]. Although it is not known whether neural damage is worse than hair-cell damage in relation to recovery, patients with neural loss may have a worse prognosis.
IT steroid injection has attracted a lot of attention as a treatment option for ISSNHL. IT dexamethasone injection is an effective salvage treatment in patients with unsatisfactory recovery after initial systemic steroid treatment [25]. Simultaneous or sequential injections are reported to be more effective than systemic steroid alone [121326]. However, we found that IT dexamethasone injection was a poor prognostic factor even after eliminating other confounding factors (Table 3). Patients whose hearing did not improve following systemic steroid administration usually sought secondary treatment, and sequential IT steroid injection was an option for those patients. Therefore, sequential IT steroid injection was found to be a poor prognostic factor.
IT dexamethasone injection was the only treatment used in 28 patients, and hearing was completely or partially improved in 42.8% of these patients. This result is similar to that observed for systemic steroid with or without IT dexamethasone injection (46.8%). As already noted, IT dexamethasone injection, as an initial treatment, is effective as systemic steroid therapy in patients with ISSNHL [27].
Various frequencies and intervals of IT dexamethasone injection are utilized for treatment. Chou, et al. [28] reported that daily injection is better than twice per week. However, in the present study, we found no statistically significant difference between injection intervals (once per week vs. more than twice per week). This result is consistent with a previous study showing that the interval of IT steroid injection does not correlate with hearing outcome [29]. The flow rate of perilymph and endolymph is extremely slow in guinea pigs [3031], and the elimination half-time of dexamethasone from the scala tympani is shorter than that from the scala vestibuli in guinea pigs (22.5 min vs. 111 min) [32]. Therefore, an administration frequency of twice or three times per week would probably result in a sufficient intralabyrinthine concentration of dexamethasone. However, the rate of inner ear fluid flow and the elimination half-time of dexamethasone from the inner ear are unknown in humans. Therefore, further studies are needed regarding the best frequency and interval of IT injection.
In conclusion, age, severity of initial hearing loss, duration from onset to treatment, initial speech discrimination score and initial pure tone threshold are statistically significant prognostic factors associated with hearing improvement in ISSNHL. IT steroid injection as an initial single treatment is comparable to systemic oral steroid administration in patients with medical conditions. Further studies are needed to determine the best IT steroid injection protocol, including the frequency and interval.

Notes

Conflicts of interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kang WS, Kim YH, Park KH, Seo MH, Son EJ, Yoo SY, et al. Treatment strategy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2011;54:675–682.
crossref
2. Wilson WR, Byl FM, Laird N. The efficacy of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden hearing loss. A double-blind clinical study. Arch Otolaryngol 1980;106:772–776. PMID: 7002129.
crossref
3. Ahn JH, Yoo MH, Yoon TH, Chung JW. Can intratympanic dexamethasone added to systemic steroids improve hearing outcome in patients with sudden deafness? Laryngoscope 2008;118:279–282. PMID: 17989574.
crossref
4. Byl FM Jr. Sudden hearing loss: eight years' experience and suggested prognostic table. Laryngoscope 1984;94:647–661. PMID: 6325838.
crossref
5. Mattox DE, Simmons FB. Natural history of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1977;86:463–480. PMID: 889223.
crossref
6. Nosrati-Zarenoe R, Arlinger S, Hultcrantz E. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: results drawn from the Swedish national database. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:1168–1175. PMID: 17851927.
crossref pmc
7. Kuhn M, Heman-Ackah SE, Shaikh JA, Roehm PC. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a review of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Trends Amplif 2011;15:91–105. PMID: 21606048.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Lin CF, Lee KJ, Yu SS, Lin YS. Effect of comorbid diabetes and hypercholesterolemia on the prognosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2016;126:142–149. PMID: 25945947.
crossref
9. Quaranta N, Squeo V, Sangineto M, Graziano G, Sabbà C. High total cholesterol in peripheral blood correlates with poorer hearing recovery in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. PLoS One 2015;10:e0133300PMID: 26208311.
crossref pmid pmc
10. Ryu OH, Choi MG, Park CH, Kim DK, Lee JS, Lee JH. Hyperglycemia as a potential prognostic factor of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;150:853–858. PMID: 24482347.
crossref
11. Hultcrantz E, Nosrati-Zarenoe R. Corticosteroid treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: analysis of an RCT and material drawn from the Swedish national database. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:3169–3175. PMID: 25351498.
crossref
12. Kim SH, Jung SY, Kim MG, Byun JY, Park MS, Yeo SG. Comparison of steroid administration methods in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a retrospective observational study. Clin Otolaryngol 2015;40:183–190. PMID: 25346100.
crossref
13. Battaglia A, Lualhati A, Lin H, Burchette R, Cueva R. A prospective, multi-centered study of the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss with combination therapy versus high-dose prednisone alone: a 139 patient follow-up. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1091–1098. PMID: 24892363.
crossref
14. Siegel LG. The treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1975;8:467–473. PMID: 1153209.

15. Nuttall AL. Sound-induced cochlear ischemia/hypoxia as a mechanism of hearing loss. Noise Health 1999;2:17–32. PMID: 12689482.

16. Tabuchi K, Nishimura B, Tanaka S, Hayashi K, Hirose Y, Hara A. Ischemia-reperfusion injury of the cochlea: pharmacological strategies for cochlear protection and implications of glutamate and reactive oxygen species. Curr Neuropharmacol 2010;8:128–134. PMID: 21119884.
crossref pmid pmc
17. Tabuchi K, Tsuji S, Fujihira K, Oikawa K, Hara A, Kusakari J. Outer hair cells functionally and structurally deteriorate during reperfusion. Hear Res 2002;173:153–163. PMID: 12372643.
crossref
18. Liberman MC, Beil DG. Hair cell condition and auditory nerve response in normal and noise-damaged cochleas. Acta Otolaryngol 1979;88:161–176. PMID: 495068.
crossref
19. Patuzzi RB, Yates GK, Johnstone BM. Outer hair cell receptor current and sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 1989;42:47–72. PMID: 2684949.
crossref
20. Wong AC, Ryan AF. Mechanisms of sensorineural cell damage, death and survival in the cochlea. Front Aging Neurosci 2015;7:58PMID: 25954196.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Takumida M, Ishibashi T, Hamamoto T, Hirakawa K, Anniko M. Age-dependent changes in the expression of klotho protein, TRPV5 and TRPV6 in mouse inner ear. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:1340–1350. PMID: 19922080.

22. Pauler M, Schuknecht HF, Thornton AR. Correlative studies of cochlear neuronal loss with speech discrimination and pure-tone thresholds. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1986;243:200–206. PMID: 3753299.
crossref
23. Noguchi Y, Takahashi M, Ito T, Fujikawa T, Kawashima Y, Kitamura K. Delayed restoration of maximum speech discrimination scores in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx 2016;43:495–500. PMID: 26739945.
crossref
24. Fetterman BL, Saunders JE, Luxford WM. Prognosis and treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Am J Otol 1996;17:529–536. PMID: 8841697.

25. Li P, Zeng XL, Ye J, Yang QT, Zhang GH, Li Y. Intratympanic methylprednisolone improves hearing function in refractory sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a control study. Audiol Neurootol 2011;16:198–202. PMID: 20948195.
crossref
26. Lee JB, Choi SJ, Park K, Park HY, Choo OS, Choung YH. The efficiency of intratympanic dexamethasone injection as a sequential treatment after initial systemic steroid therapy for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:833–839. PMID: 21221620.
crossref
27. Rauch SD, Halpin CF, Antonelli PJ, Babu S, Carey JP, Gantz BJ, et al. Oral vs intratympanic corticosteroid therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a randomized trial. JAMA 2011;305:2071–2079. PMID: 21610239.
crossref
28. Chou YF, Chen PR, Kuo IJ, Yu SH, Wen YH, Wu HP. Comparison of intermittent intratympanic steroid injection and near-continual transtympanic steroid perfusion as salvage treatments for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2264–2269. PMID: 23804460.
crossref
29. Suzuki H, Koizumi H, Ohkubo J, Hohchi N, Ikezaki S, Kitamura T. Hearing outcome does not depend on the interval of intratympanic steroid administration in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:3101–3107. PMID: 26879994.
crossref pdf
30. Ohyama K, Salt AN, Thalmann R. Volume flow rate of perilymph in the guinea-pig cochlea. Hear Res 1988;35:119–129. PMID: 3198505.
crossref
31. Salt AN, Thalmann R, Marcus DC, Bohne BA. Direct measurement of longitudinal endolymph flow rate in the guinea pig cochlea. Hear Res 1986;23:141–151. PMID: 3745017.
crossref
32. Salt AN, Hartsock JJ, Gill RM, Piu F, Plontke SK. Perilymph pharmacokinetics of markers and dexamethasone applied and sampled at the lateral semi-circular canal. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012;13:771–783. PMID: 22968908.
crossref pmid pmc
Table 1.

Demographic and clinical factors related to recovery of hearing

Variable Complete recovery, n (%) Partial recovery, n (%) Slight improvement, n (%) No improvement, n (%) OR (recovery → no improvement) p*
Gender
 Male 67 (25.3) 60 (22.7) 49 (75.4) 89 (33.6) 1
 Female 62 (27.1) 41 (17.9) 46 (20.1) 80 (34.9) 1.035 0.833
Age 0.001
 Mean (years) 44.6 53.9 53.5 51.8 1.017
Associated symptom
 Vertigo
  No 113 (32.1) 79 (22.4) 45 (12.8) 115 (32.7) 1
  Yes 16 (11.3) 22 (15.5) 50 (35.2) 54 (38.0) 2.086 <0.001
 Tinnitus
  No 32 (24.1) 35 (26.3) 22 (16.5) 44 (33.1) 1
  Yes 97 (27.0) 66 (18.4) 73 (20.3) 123 (34.3) 1.052 0.779
Initial PTA threshold <0.001
 Mild 31 (46.3) 27 (40.3) 0 (0) 9 (13.4) 1
 Moderate 62 (33.0) 36 (19.1) 5 (2.7) 85 (45.2) 3.467
 Severe 27 (25.5) 27 (25.5) 17 (16.0) 35 (33.0) 3.191
 Profound 8 (6.1) 11 (8.3) 73 (55.3) 40 (30.3) 6.018
Initial SD 0.990 <0.001
 Mean (%) 57.4 55.8 5.9 40.5
Duration from onset to treatment <0.001
 Mean (days) 4.74 6.82 3.75 10.5
Pattern of hearing loss 0.007
 Upward sloping 50 (56.8) 16 (18.2) 10 (11.4) 12 (13.6) 1
 Downward sloping 16 (12.0) 35 (26.3) 16 (12.0) 66 (49.6) 7.590
 Tent 12 (32.4) 15 (40.5) 1 (2.7) 9 (24.3) 2.085
 Flat 25 (26.3) 28 (29.5) 10 (10.5) 32 (33.7) 3.451
 Notching 21 (51.2) 4 (9.8) 3 (7.3) 13 (31.7) 8.890
 No response 5 (5.0) 3 (3.0) 55 (55.0) 37 (37.0) 1.781

* assessed by using the logistic regression test (univariate analysis).

PTA: pure tone audiometry, OR: odds ratio, SD: speech discrimination

Table 2.

Comorbidities and laboratory abnormalities related to recovery of hearing

Variable Complete recovery, n (%) Partial recovery, n (%) Slight improvement, n (%) No improvement, n (%) OR (recovery → no improvement) p*
Hypertension
 No 97 (31.1) 55 (17.6) 57 (18.3) 103 (33.0) 1
 Yes 31 (18.2) 41 (24.1) 38 (22.4) 60 (35.3) 1.361 0.070
Diabetes
 No 116 (29.4) 77 (19.5) 72 (18.3) 129 (32.7) 1
 Yes 12 (13.6) 19 (21.6) 23 (26.1) 34 (38.1) 1.636 0.018
Dyslipidemia
 No 114 (27.7) 86 (20.9) 77 (18.7) 134 (32.6) 1
 Yes 14 (20.0) 9 (12.9) 18 (25.7) 29 (41.4) 1.604 0.044
Stroke
 No 127 (26.9) 96 (20.3) 90 (19.1) 159 (33.7) 1
 Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 2.662 0.128
MI
 No 123 (26.9) 94 (20.6) 89 (19.5) 151 (33.0) 1
 Yes 4 (18.2) 2 (9.1) 5 (22.7) 11 (50.0) 2.053 0.079
Sleep disturbance
 No 126 (26.8) 95 (20.2) 90 (19.1) 159 (33.8) 1
 Yes 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 3 (37.5) 3 (37.5) 1.664 0.408
Smoking
 No 85 (27.5) 59 (19.1) 58 (18.8) 107 (34.6) 1
 Quit 8 (21.6) 5 (13.5) 15 (40.5) 9 (24.3) 1.075
 Current 16 (28.6) 10 (17.9) 8 (14.3) 22 (39.3) 1.045
Alcohol consumption 0.651
 No 73 (25.9) 52 (18.4) 57 (20.2) 100 (35.5) 1
 Social 34 (32.4) 19 (18.1) 19 (18.1) 33 (31.4) 0.780
 Heavy 2 (13.3) 3 (20.0) 5 (33.3) 5 (33.3) 1.281
Platelet abnormality
 No 116 (27.4) 84 (19.9) 81 (19.1) 142 (33.6) 1
 Yes 10 (16.9) 15 (25.4) 12 (20.3) 22 (37.3) 2.023 0.157
Coagulation abnormality
 No 97 (26.1) 72 (19.4) 70 (18.9) 132 (35.6) 1
 Yes 22 (25.9) 21 (24.7) 18 (21.2) 24 (28.2) 0.834 0.525
BMI 0.888
 Low weight 3 (27.3) 3 (27.3) 2 (18.2) 3 (27.3) 0.800
 Normal 41 (27.5) 24 (16.1) 35 (23.5) 49 (32.9) 1
 Obese 45 (26.8) 33 (19.6) 31 (18.5) 59 (35.1) 1.015
Lipid profile
 Hypercholesterolemia
  No 84 (26.6) 69 (21.8) 51 (16.1) 112 (35.4) 1
  Yes 40 (24.5) 30 (18.4) 41 (25.2) 52 (31.9) 1.040 0.818
 TG≥130
  No 31 (24.6) 35 (27.8) 21 (16.7) 39 (31.0) 1
  Yes 1 (10.0) 5 (50.0) 2 (20.0) 2 (20.0) 1.168 0.771
 LDL≥200
  No 31 (26.3) 33 (28.0) 20 (16.9) 34 (31.0) 1
  Yes 0 (0) 2 (25.0) 2 (25.0) 4 (50.0) 3.115 0.086
 HDL < 60
  No 7 (20.6) 12 (35.3) 4 (11.8) 11 (32.4) 1
  Yes 25 (25.3) 27 (27.3) 17 (17.2) 30 (30.3) 1.287 0.732
TFT abnormalities
 No 24 (35.8) 16 (23.9) 12 (17.9) 15 (22.4) 1
 Yes 5 (21.7) 5 (21.7) 7 (30.4) 6 (26.1) 1.686 0.223
Zinc abnormality
 No 19 (35.8) 15 (28.3) 8 (15.1) 11 (20.8) 1
 Yes 3 (21.4) 4 (28.6) 3 (21.4) 4 (28.6) 0.797 0.680

* assessed by using the logistic regression test (univariate analysis).

BMI: body mass index, HDL: high-density lipoprotein, LDL: lowdensity lipoprotein, MI: myocardial infarction, OR: odds ratio, TFT: thyroid function test, TG: triglyceride

Table 3.

Treatment options in relation to recovery of hearing

Variable Complete recovery, n (%) Partial recovery, n (%) Slightly improvement, n (%) No improvement, n (%) OR (recovery → no improvement) p*
Treatment 129 (26.1) 101 (20.4) 95 (19.2) 169 (34.2)
 Oral steroid only 80 (34.0) 63 (26.8) 37 (15.7) 55 (23.4) 1 <0.001
 Concurrent 41 (32.0) 15 (11.7) 21 (16.4) 51 (39.8) 1.741 0.007
 Sequential 6 (5.8) 13 (12.6) 32 (31.1) 52 (50.5) 4.202 <0.001
 IT steroid only 2 (7.1) 10 (35.7) 5 (17.9) 11 (39.3) 2.441 0.011
Admission
 No 73 (28.7) 43 (16.9) 52 (20.5) 86 (33.9) 1
 Yes 56 (23.3) 58 (23.2) 43 (17.9) 83 (34.6) 1.073 0.663
Duration from onset to IT steroid
 Mean (days) 8.7 21.3 18.4 23.6 1.021 0.001
IT steroid interval
 1 day (everyday) 39 (29.5) 18 (13.6) 24 (18.2) 51 (38.6) 1
 >1 day 90 (24.9) 83 (22.9) 71 (19.6) 118 (32.6) 2.001 0.003
Number of IT steroids
 ≤3 14 (15.7) 18 (20.2) 20 (22.5) 37 (41.6) 1
 >3 36 (21.4) 18 (10.7) 38 (22.6) 76 (45.2) 0.865 0.756

Systemic steroid administration followed by IT steroid injection was defined as “sequential” treatment.

* assessed by using the logistic regression test (univariate analysis).

IT: intratympanic, OR: odds ratio

Table 4.

Multivariate analysis for factors affecting recovery from sudden hearing loss (n=490)

Variables OR 95% CI for OR
p*
Lower Upper
Age 1.018 1.007 1.029 0.001
Duration from onset to treatment 1.079 1.052 1.107 <0.001
Initial speech discrimination 1.017 1.005 1.028 0.004
Initial PTA threshold
 Mild 1 <0.001
 Moderate 3.505 2.025 6.069 <0.001
 Severe 3.37 1.850 6.139 <0.001
 Profound 7.305 4.035 13.226 <0.001
Treatment
 Oral steroid only 1 <0.001
 Concurrent 1.523 1.022 2.271 0.046
 Sequential 3.457 2.178 5.488 <0.001
 IT steroid only 1.560 0.714 3.408 0.232

Systemic steroid administration followed by IT steroid injection is defined as “sequential” treatment.

* assessed by using the logistic regression test.

CI: confidence interval, OR: odds ratio, PTA: pure tone audiometry, IT: intratympanic

Table 5.

Multivariate analysis for factors affecting recovery of sudden hearing loss in patients treated with IT steroid injection (n=259)

Variables OR 95% CI for OR
p*
Lower Upper
Duration from onset to treatment 1.06 1.028 1.093 <0.001
Initial PTA threshold
 Mild 1
 Moderate 3.499 1.557 7.864 0.003
 Severe 3.314 1.411 7.785 0.007
 Profound 4.741 2.045 10.99 <0.001
Treatment
 Concurrent 1
 Sequential 2.340 1.407 3.892 <0.001
 IT steroid only 1.264 0.573 2.786 0.544

Systemic steroid administration followed by IT steroid injection is defined as “sequential” treatment.

* assessed by using the logistic regression test.

CI: confidence interval, OR: odds ratio, PTA: pure tone audiometry, IT: intratympanic



ABOUT
ARTICLES

Browse all articles >

ISSUES
TOPICS

Browse all articles >

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Editorial Office
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital
#505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2258-6213    Fax: +82-2-595-1354    E-mail: khpent@catholic.ac.kr                

Copyright © 2019 by The Korean Audiological Society and Korean Otological Society. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2community

Close layer
prev next