RSS-Feed abonnieren
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1607334
Outcomes of Automated Auditory Evoked Potential Performed in Different Settings and the Factors Associated with Referred Cases
Publikationsverlauf
23. April 2017
03. September 2017
Publikationsdatum:
25. Oktober 2017 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00025477/201804/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0037-1607334_0667or-1.jpg)
Abstract
Introduction For the population with risk factors for hearing loss, the first option to assess the hearing status is the performance of the automated brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) test because of its efficacy in identifying retrocochlear hearing loss.
Objective To verify the outcomes of automated BAEP performed in different settings as well as the factors associated with the prevalence of hearing impairment.
Methods Cross-sectional study conducted from October of 2014 to May of 2015. The sample consisted of 161 infants with at least one risk factor for hearing loss who underwent automated BAEP during the hospital stay or at the outpatient clinic. After 30 days, the altered cases were referred for BAEP diagnosis.
Results One hundred and thirty-eight infants (86%) had a result of “pass” and 23 (14%) of “failure” in the automated BAEP. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of “referred” results between examinations performed in different settings. The infants' ages did not influence the number of abnormal cases. All of the 23 infants who presented a “referred” result in the automated BAEP, unilateral or bilateral, were sent for BAEP diagnosis, and out of these, 9 (39%) remained with at least some degree of alteration. The average age of diagnosis was 2.7 months.
Conclusion The results of the automated BAEP were similar when performed during hospitalization or after discharge. Neither the age at the examination nor the gender of the patient influenced the prevalence of hearing loss.
-
References
- 1 Yoshinaga-Itano C, Wiggin M. A look into the crystal ball for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: needs, opportunities, and challenges. Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37 (04) 252-258
- 2 Lederberg AR, Schick B, Spencer PE. Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: successes and challenges. Dev Psychol 2013; 49 (01) 15-30
- 3 Drion B. Newborn hearing screening and deafness care in deaf families: Be careful of tactlessness!. Arch Pediatr 2016; 23 (07) 773-774
- 4 American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007; 120 (04) 898-921
- 5 Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M. Automated auditory response detection: Improvement of the statistical test strategy. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (12) 861-864
- 6 de Kock T, Swanepoel D, Hall III JW. Newborn hearing screening at a community-based obstetric unit: Screening and diagnostic outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 84: 124-131
- 7 Pimperton H, Blythe H, Kreppner J. , et al. The impact of universal newborn hearing screening on long-term literacy outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Arch Dis Child 2016; 101 (01) 9-15
- 8 Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E. Automated auditory response detection: Further improvement of the statistical test strategy by using progressive test steps of iteration. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (08) 568-572
- 9 Lewis DR, Marone SAM, Mendes BCA. , et al. Multiprofessional committee on auditory health: COMUSA. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2010; 76 (01) 121-128
- 10 Angrisani RMG, Suzuki MR, Pifaia GR. , et al. Automatic ABR in newborns risk: study of sensitivity and specificity. Rev CEFAC 2012; 14 (02) 223-233
- 11 Benito-Orejas JI, Ramírez B, Morais D. , et al. Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72 (08) 1193-1201
- 12 Faistauer M, Augusto TAM, Floriano M. , et al. Implementation of a program of universal newborn hearing screening in a university hospital in a city in south Brazil: preliminary results. Rev AMRIGS 2012; 56 (01) 22-55
- 13 Jacobson JT, Jacobson CA, Spahr RC. Automated and conventional ABR screening techniques in high-risk infants. J Am Acad Audiol 1990; 1 (04) 187-195
- 14 van Straaten HL, Tibosch CH, Dorrepaal C. , et al. Efficacy of automated auditory brainstem response hearing screening in very preterm newborns. J Pediatr 2001; 138 (05) 674-678
- 15 Qi B, En H, Huang L. The review of newborn hearing screening program in neonatal intensive care unit. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2015; 29 (23) 2103-2106
- 16 Xu ZM, Cheng WX, Yang XL. Performance of two hearing screening protocols in NICU in Shanghai. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75 (10) 1225-1229
- 17 Conti G, Gallus R, Fetoni AR. , et al. Early definition of type, degree and audiogram shape in childhood hearing impairment. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2016; 36 (01) 21-28
- 18 Li PC, Chen WI, Huang CM. , et al. Comparison of newborn hearing screening in well-baby nursery and NICU: a study applied to reduce referral rate in NICU. PLoS One 2016; 11 (03) e0152028
- 19 van Dyk M, Swanepoel W, Hall III JW. Outcomes with OAE and AABR screening in the first 48 h--Implications for newborn hearing screening in developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (07) 1034-1040
- 20 Berg AL, Spitzer JB, Towers HM. , et al. Newborn hearing screening in the NICU: profile of failed auditory brainstem response/passed otoacoustic emission. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (04) 933-938
- 21 Suppiej A, Rizzardi E, Zanardo V. , et al. Reliability of hearing screening in high-risk neonates: comparative study of otoacoustic emission, automated and conventional auditory brainstem response. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118 (04) 869-876
- 22 Smets K, Verrue N, Dhooge I. Implementation and results of bedside hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response in the neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101 (09) e392-e398
- 23 Baldwin M, Watkin P. Predicting the degree of hearing loss using click auditory brainstem response in babies referred from newborn hearing screening. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (03) 361-369
- 24 McGurgan IJ, Patil N. Neonatal hearing screening of high-risk infants using automated auditory brainstem response: a retrospective analysis of referral rates. Ir J Med Sci 2014; 183 (03) 405-410
- 25 Berninger E, Westling B. Outcome of a universal newborn hearing-screening programme based on multiple transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and clinical brainstem response audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol 2011; 131 (07) 728-739
- 26 van Straaten HL, Hille ET, Kok JH. , et al. Implementation of a nation-wide automated auditory brainstem response hearing screening programme in neonatal intensive care units. Acta Paediatr 2003; 92 (03) 332-338
- 27 Jiang ZD, Ping LL, Wilkinson AR. Functional abnormality of the auditory brainstem in high-risk late preterm infants. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123 (05) 993-1001
- 28 Jiang ZD. A longitudinal study of brainstem auditory response from birth to late term in late preterm babies and abnormal findings in high-risk babies. J Perinat Med 2015; 43 (06) 769-776
- 29 Silva Dd, Lopez P, Mantovani JC. Auditory brainstem response in term and preterm infants with neonatal complications: the importance of the sequential evaluation. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 19 (02) 161-165