{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Evaluating calcium channel blockers and bisphosphonates as otoprotective agents in cochlear implantation hearing preservation candidates.
{Author}: Yancey KL;Patro A;Smetak M;Perkins EL;Isaacson B;Bennett ML;O'Malley M;Haynes DS;Hunter JB;
{Journal}: Cochlear Implants Int
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 May 13
暂无{DOI}: 10.1080/14670100.2024.2338003
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Evaluate potential effects of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and bisphosphonates (BP) on residual hearing following cochlear implantation.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Medications of 303 adult hearing preservation (HP) candidates (low frequency pure tone average [LFPTA] of 125, 250, and 500 Hz ≤80 dB HL) were reviewed. Postimplantation LFPTA of patients taking CCBs and BPs were compared to controls matched by age and preimplantation LFPTA.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Twenty-six HP candidates were taking a CCB (N = 14) or bisphosphonate (N = 12) at implantation. Median follow-up was 1.37 years (range 0.22-4.64y). Among subjects with initial HP, 29% (N = 2 of 7) CCB users compared to 50% (N = 2 of 4) controls subsequently lost residual hearing 3-6 months later (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.04-4.32, p = 0.58). None of the four BP patients with initial HP experienced delayed loss compared to 50% (N = 2 of 4) controls with initial HP (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-1.95, P = 0.43). Two CCB and one BP patients improved to a LFPTA <80 dB HL following initial unaided thresholds that suggested loss of residual hearing.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>There were no significant differences in the odds of delayed loss of residual hearing with CCBs or BPs.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Further investigation into potential otoprotective adjuvants for maintaining residual hearing following initial successful hearing preservation is warranted, with larger cohorts and additional CCB/BP agents.