Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this investigation is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the MED-EL Electric-Acoustic System (EAS), a medical device that combines the use of a cochlear implant with an external electric-acoustic processor designed to provide benefit in speech perception and sound quality to individuals with a sensorineural hearing loss with minimal changes in residual hearing. The acoustic component of the processor will aid residual acoustic hearing in low frequency ranges, while the cochlear implant and electric component of the processor will be used to electrically stimulate the auditory nerve across a wide range of frequencies necessary for speech perception.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original Audiological Criteria | Experimental | Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition. |
|
| Expanded Audiological Criteria | Experimental | Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+*110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition. Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that: In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electric Acoustic System | Device | Combination of a cochlear implant and a hearing aid |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Preoperative Hearing Aid Alone Condition. | CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the total percent correct for EAS at 12 months giving a percentage point improvement in speech perception with EAS. | 12 months post initial activation |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Cochlear Implant Alone Condition | CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for the CI Alone condition was subtracted from the total percent correct for the EAS condition at 12 months giving an improvement in speech perception with EAS compared to CI Alone. | 12 months initial activation |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Audiologic tests suggest a moderate sloping to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss in the ear to be implanted. The non-implanted ear may fall outside of these criteria; however, threshold levels cannot be better than the indication criteria (for example, the non-implanted ear must be 60 dB or poorer at 1000 Hz, 70 dB or poorer at 2000-8000 Hz).
Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels for the ear to be implanted shall fall at or within the following levels:
250 Hz - 500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 65 dB HL 750 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 75 dB HL 1000-1500 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 60 dBHL (ie. 60-110+ dB HL) 2000 Hz - 8000 Hz hearing loss less than or equal to 70 dB HL
Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 10 10 10 60 60 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+ *110+ *110+ *110+ *90+
Pure-tone air-conduction thresholds for both ears are within 20 dB of each other at 250, 500 and 1000 Hz.
Air-bone gap at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz should be <10 dB at two or more of these frequencies.
Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤50% in the best-aided condition.
Normal middle ear anatomy and function (based on clinical assessment of tympanometry and acoustic reflex results). No prior middle ear surgery or history of postadolescent, chronic middle ear infections or inner ear disorders (i.e. vertigo or Meniere's syndrome).
No evidence that hearing loss origin is retrocochlear.
Current user of bilateral acoustic hearing aids for at least 3 months. Note: If the subject has not been a successful hearing aid user (i.e. improper fit, feedback and/or discomfort from high frequency amplification), he/she must complete a hearing aid trial in the ear to be implanted for at least 1 month. If the ear to be implanted is poorer than the contralateral ear, then the subject must complete a hearing aid trial in both ears for at least 1 month to ensure that he/she is tested in the best-aided condition.
Adults 18-70 years of age at time of implantation.
Persons who currently exhibit sufficient understanding and communicative skills to comprehend general conversation in an "oral/aural mode" through normal conversation channels.
English as primary language.
Appropriate motivation and expectation levels.
Expanded Criteria:
Study Arm 2 candidates are those who meet the inclusion criteria listed above with the exception that:
In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 250, 500, and/or 750 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 10 dB HL, and/or In the ear to be implanted, the pure-tone air conduction threshold(s) at 1000 and/or 1500 Hz will be greater than or equal to 0 dB HL and less than 60 dB HL and/or In their best-aided condition, they score 51-60% on monosyllabic word scores.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Debra Tucci, MD | Duke University | Principal Investigator |
| Christina Runge, PhD | Medical College of Wisconsin | Principal Investigator |
| Michael Ruckenstein, MD | University of Pennsylvania | Principal Investigator |
| Hinrich Staecker, MD | University of Kansas Medical Center | Principal Investigator |
| Peter Roland, MD | University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center | Principal Investigator |
| Oliver Adunka, MD | University of North Carolina Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Ronald Hoffman, MD | New York Eye and Ear | Principal Investigator |
| Richard Miyamoto, MD | Indiana University | Principal Investigator |
| Teresa Zwolan, PhD | University of Michigan | Principal Investigator |
| Nikolas Blevins, MD |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford University Medical Center | Stanford | California | 94035 | United States | ||
| University of Miami |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17364328 | Background | Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I. Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007 Jan;127(1):41-8. doi: 10.1080/00016480500488917. | |
| 16864490 | Background | Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Anderson I. Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006 Sep;126(9):934-40. doi: 10.1080/00016480600606632. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Original Audiological Criteria | Originally the study was designed to have two ARMs, but the second study ARM did not fully enroll. At the time of submission, the data for both ARMs was collapsed and data analysis was completed on all subjects as one group. The below inclusion criteria represents both ARMs as one group. Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+*110+ *110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤60% in the best-aided condition. Electric Acoustic System: Combination of a cochlear implant and a hearing aid |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Improvement on Speech Perception in the CI-only Condition as Compared to the Preoperative With Hearing Aid Condition. | CNC words are scored as the percent correct out of 50 words. The percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the percent correct for CI Alone at 12 months giving an improvement on speech perception for CI Alone compared to preoperative hearing aids. | 12 months post initial activation |
| Increased Benefit With EAS as Compared to Their Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the APHAB Questionnaire. | A lower score on the APHAB indicates a better performance. The global score for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the global score for EAS at 12 months giving an improvement on the APHAB with EAS. | 12 months post initial activation |
| Increase in Satisfaction With EAS Compared to Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the HDSS. | Satisfaction is ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Data reported is the percentage of subjects who experienced an increase in satisfaction when using EAS compared to preoperative hearing aids. | 12 months post initial activation |
| Stanford University |
| Principal Investigator |
| Rodney Lusk, MD | Boys Town | Principal Investigator |
| Fred Telischi, MD | University of Miami | Principal Investigator |
| Douglas Backous, MD | Swedish Medical Center | Principal Investigator |
| Frank Warren, MD | Oregon Health Sciences Center | Principal Investigator |
| Miami |
| Florida |
| 33136 |
| United States |
| Indiana University School of Medicine | Indianapolis | Indiana | 46202 | United States |
| University of Kansas Medical Center | Kansas City | Kansas | 66160 | United States |
| University of Michigan | Ann Arbor | Michigan | 48108 | United States |
| Boys Town | Omaha | Nebraska | 68131 | United States |
| New York Eye & Ear | New York | New York | 10003 | United States |
| University of North Carolina Hospital | Chapel Hill | North Carolina | 27514 | United States |
| Duke University Medical Center | Durham | North Carolina | 27710 | United States |
| Oregon Health Sciences Center | Portland | Oregon | 97239 | United States |
| Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | Pennsylvania | 19104 | United States |
| University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center | Dallas | Texas | 75390 | United States |
| Swedish Medical Center | Seattle | Washington | 98122 | United States |
| Medical College of Wisconsin | Milwaukee | Wisconsin | 53226 | United States |
| 15603395 | Background | Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A. [New method of partial deafness treatment]. Otolaryngol Pol. 2004;58(4):811-6. Polish. |
| 12709676 | Background | Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CS20-4. |
| 15724084 | Background | Kiefer J, Pok M, Adunka O, Sturzebecher E, Baumgartner W, Schmidt M, Tillein J, Ye Q, Gstoettner W. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol Neurootol. 2005 May-Jun;10(3):134-44. doi: 10.1159/000084023. Epub 2005 Feb 17. |
| 15141755 | Background | Kiefer J, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, Pok SM, Tillein J, Ye Q, von Ilberg C. Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 Apr;124(3):272-80. doi: 10.1080/00016480310000755a. |
| 10545807 | Background | von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Pfenningdorff T, Hartmann R, Sturzebecher E, Klinke R. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1999 Nov-Dec;61(6):334-40. doi: 10.1159/000027695. |
| 17063011 | Background | Gstoettner WK, Helbig S, Maier N, Kiefer J, Radeloff A, Adunka OF. Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of long-term hearing preservation. Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11 Suppl 1:49-56. doi: 10.1159/000095614. Epub 2006 Oct 6. |
| 15224851 | Background | Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner WD, Pok S, Peters S, Adunka O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 May;124(4):348-52. doi: 10.1080/00016480410016432. |
| 19086194 | Result | Gstoettner WK, van de Heyning P, O'Connor AF, Morera C, Sainz M, Vermeire K, Mcdonald S, Cavalle L, Helbig S, Valdecasas JG, Anderson I, Adunka OF. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008 Sep;128(9):968-75. doi: 10.1080/00016480701805471. |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
6 participants withdrew before study completion, outcome measures are reported 67 participants
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Original Audiological Criteria | Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+*110+ *110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤60% in the best-aided condition. Electric Acoustic System: Combination of a cochlear implant and a hearing aid |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Full Range | years |
| |||||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant. | Count of Participants | Participants |
| |||||||||||||||||
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Duration of hearing loss | Mean | Full Range | years |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Preoperative Hearing Aid Alone Condition. | CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the total percent correct for EAS at 12 months giving a percentage point improvement in speech perception with EAS. | One subject lost residual hearing immediately following surgery and was unable to use EAS. This subject was tested with the cochlear implant alone and is not included in this analysis. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage of words correct (CUNY) | 12 months post initial activation |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Improvement in Speech Perception in Noise With EAS When Compared to the Cochlear Implant Alone Condition | CUNY sentences in noise are scored as the percent correct of words in each sentence. The total percent correct for the CI Alone condition was subtracted from the total percent correct for the EAS condition at 12 months giving an improvement in speech perception with EAS compared to CI Alone. | One subject lost residual hearing immediately after surgery and was unable to use EAS. The subject was testing in cochlear implant alone condition. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage of words correct (CUNY) | 12 months initial activation |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Improvement on Speech Perception in the CI-only Condition as Compared to the Preoperative With Hearing Aid Condition. | CNC words are scored as the percent correct out of 50 words. The percent correct for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the percent correct for CI Alone at 12 months giving an improvement on speech perception for CI Alone compared to preoperative hearing aids. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage of words correct (CNC) | 12 months post initial activation |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Increased Benefit With EAS as Compared to Their Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the APHAB Questionnaire. | A lower score on the APHAB indicates a better performance. The global score for preoperative hearing aid use was subtracted from the global score for EAS at 12 months giving an improvement on the APHAB with EAS. | Only 59 subjects completed the APHAB at preop and 12 months post activation. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | percentage of scoring change (APHAB) | 12 months post initial activation |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Increase in Satisfaction With EAS Compared to Preoperative Hearing Aid Condition as Measured by the HDSS. | Satisfaction is ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Data reported is the percentage of subjects who experienced an increase in satisfaction when using EAS compared to preoperative hearing aids. | Only 59 subjects completed the HDSS at preop and 12 month post activation. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 12 months post initial activation |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Original Audiological Criteria | Inclusion Criteria: Pure-tone air-conduction threshold levels shall fall at or within the levels listed in the following chart. Frequency (Hz): 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000 4000 8000 Lower Limit: 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 Upper Limit: 65 65 75 *110+*110+ *110+ *110+ *90+ Minimal benefit from optimally fit hearing aid/s, preferably bilateral, with monosyllabic word scores in quiet of ≤60% in the best-aided condition. Electric Acoustic System: Combination of a cochlear implant and a hearing aid | 0 | 73 | 10 | 73 | 14 | 73 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profound/total loss of residual hearing | Ear and labyrinth disorders |
| |||
| Electrode migration | Ear and labyrinth disorders |
| |||
| Electrode lead breakage | Ear and labyrinth disorders | Excess micro-movements caused by subject |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type B/Type C tympanogram | Ear and labyrinth disorders |
| |||
| Conductive hearing loss | Ear and labyrinth disorders |
| |||
| Pain at implant site | Ear and labyrinth disorders |
|
The PI shall not publish until after the multi center publication, provided that the multi center publication is submitted within 12 months after conclusion of the study.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. Clinical Research Associate | MED-EL Corporation | clinicaltrials@medelus.com |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D034381 | Hearing Loss |
| D006319 | Hearing Loss, Sensorineural |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D006311 | Hearing Disorders |
| D004427 | Ear Diseases |
| D010038 | Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases |
| D012678 | Sensation Disorders |
| D009461 | Neurologic Manifestations |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
|
|
|
|